Hemant Singh Rana vs State Of M.P. And Others

This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the

order dated 12/03/2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 6709/2017, whereby learned Single Judge upheld the order dated 22/06/2017 passed by the

Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, District Indore, finding the appellant unsuitable for appointment on the post of Police Constable because of his

post criminal track record.

The appellant was selected as Constable in the OBC category after passing through Police Recruitment Test, 2013. And though while filling the form

on 25/05/2013, the appellant had declared that no criminal case is registered against him. It was only after his selection he disclosed of having being

subjected to criminal prosecution in 8 cases, viz, Crime No. 59/10 registered at Police Station Pichchor under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506-B, 34 IPC;

Crime No. 610/10 registered at Police Station Dabra under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC; Crime No. 711/10 registered at Police Station Dabra under

Sections 327, 341, 323, 147, 294 IPC; Crime No. 390/11 registered at Police Station Dabra under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 IPC; Crime No. 208/11

registered at Police Station Dabra under Sections 324, 341, 323, 506, 34 IPC; Crime No. 597/11 registered at Police Station Dabra under Sections 307,

34 IPC; Crime No. 740/09 registered at Police Station Dabra under Sections 341, 294, 324, 506, 34 IPC; Crime No. 835/211 registered at Police

Station Dabra under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 IPC. Of these, in 7 cases, the acquittal was on the basis of compromise.

This antecedent led the Screening Committee which was directed by order dated 17/04/2017 in W.P. No. 2440/2017(S), to scrutinize the case of the

petitioner, and arrive at the conclusion of his not eligible for appointment in disciplined force; vide communication No.

fn'kk@21@Ogj@2014&17@,Q&57@14 dated 18/03/2014, which led the Competent Authority to hold him unsuitable for appointment.

Learned Single Judge affirmed the same holding that:-

“Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Avtar Singh (supra) laid down in respect of testing suitability of candidate vis a vis criminal antecedents.

While considering the question, suppression of relevant information or false information in relation to criminal prosecution, arrest or pendency of

criminal case against the candidate, the Apex Court summarized the conclusion in para 38. As per said decision para 38.5 applied in a case where the

employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be

compelled to appoint the candidate. It is thus well settled that acquittal in criminal case does not automatically entitles him for appointment. Still it is

open for the employer to consider the antecedent and examine whether he is suitable for appointment on the post or not.

Conduct of petitioner is writ large on the face of it when he concealed the information about his criminal past from the authority. This aspect also goes

against the petitioner.

Here, in the present case petitioner

is not only acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt on compromise but at the same time he suppressed these material facts before the authority and

therefore, this aspect has been considered in the impugned order itself and it puts integrity of petitioner doubtful. Other aspects have also been

considered.â€​

Careful reading of the orders whereby the appellant who was prosecuted for the offences under Section 451, 294, 341, and was acquitted on the basis

of compromise will not prevent the employer from assessing the character as to whether the person can be appointed in police force. It was not only

01 but 08 cases registered against the appellant in respect of incident at different point of time. It cannot be said he was falsely implicated. All these

facts have been carefully evaluated by the Screening Committee and the Competent Authority.

A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 163/2009 (Roop Narayan Sahu Vs. State of M.P. & others) decided on 11/08/2017, relying on the

decision in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & others [(2016) 8 SCC 471] held:-

“12. At this stage it is condign to state that a three-judge Bench of the apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) has reviewed the entire case law on the

subject, i.e., jurisdiction of an employer to adjudge eligibility and suitability in the matter of selection or appointment in the event of suppression of

material information or giving false information in the application form as to conviction, acquittal, arrest or pendency of a criminal case and in the event

where the employee has made a declaration truthfully of a concluded trial or for the offence of trivial nature and ultimately resulting into acquittal

based on a compromise prior to submission of the application form for appointment. In para 38 of the judgment the Supreme Court has summarised

the conclusions regarding nature of offences and their ultimate eventualities in the context of scope of jurisdiction of the authority to deal with these

aspects while taking a decision for judging the suitability and eligibility of a candidate for employment on the post.

Thus, the decision taken by the Department was not mechanical, but it was a conscious decision after taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case in proper perspective. Further, if a candidate is to be recruited to the Police service, he must be worthy confidence of an

utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. The persons having criminal antecedents, would not fall within the ambit of the

said category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he can be completely exonerated. [See: State of Madhya Pradesh and

others vs. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591]â€​

Though a reliance is placed on the decision in Writ Appeal No. 46/2018 (Bhupendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & others) decided on 24/01/2018.

However, the facts therein were that the candidature of the incumbent was rejected without ascertaining the conduct. Therefore, the matter was

remitted to the Competent Authority for fresh consideration. Whereas in the case at hand, the case of the petitioner has been meticulously examined

by the Screening Committee.

The impugned order when is tested on the anvil of above analysis, leaves no scope for interference.

Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.