Ravindra Kumar Pandoria vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 09.12.2013, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable is rejected. The rejection order is based on some character verification report prepared by the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case arising out of crime No. 422/2010 for offences u/s 452, 324, 294 and 34 IPC. He was acquitted on facts by the competent authority. He did not suppress the factum of said criminal case in his verification form. Clause 7 of Circular dated 5th June 2003 (Annexure P/10, page 44) makes him eligible. Heavy reliance is placed on recent judgment of this Court delivered in WP No. 3875/2013 (Dilip Kumar Samadhiya Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.).

Per Contra, Shri B. Raj Pandey submits that merely because petitioner is acquitted will not make him eligible for appointment. His acquittal was not on merits, but was because of lack of evidence. Heavy reliance is placed on recent judgment of Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh, .

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In Mehar Singh (supra) the Apex Court considered the impact of various kind of acquittals. Acquittal on compromise (Rajinama) and also acquittal on benefit of doubt were taken into consideration. Effect of exoneration on the basis of insufficient/lack of evidence was also considered. This Court in Dilip Kumar Samadhiya (supra) followed the judgment of Mehar Singh and disposed of the matter with certain directions. In the opinion of this Court the present petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of said judgment. In the said judgment, this Court in Para 14 to 20 opined as under:-

On conjoint reading of aforesaid paragraphs and findings of Supreme Court in Mehar Singh makes it clear that police authorities are well within their rights to decide the candidature of a person who is acquitted on benefit of doubt or on the basis of compromise. The only question is whether such candidature can be rejected on the threshold by holding that they were involved in criminal cases and their acquittal is on benefit of doubt or on basis of compromise.

The Delhi Police appointed a screening committee of expert officers to examine various aspects mentioned in the judgment of Mehar Singh. No such mechanism is shown to this Court by the respondents. The important question is whether every exoneration of candidate on benefit of doubt or on basis of compromise will make him ineligible for appointment in police force? Before dealing with this aspect, in my opinion, it is a matter of common knowledge that in various cases, because of personal enmity and rivalry etc. false reports are lodged even against those persons who are not at all involved in the incident. Cases are not unknown where quarrel takes place between two persons and complainant registers report against the all family members and relatives of the other person. In such cases, many a times good sense prevails on the parties subsequently and they enter into a compromise. If as a thumb rule it is decided that all cases where acquittal of candidate is on Rajinama makes them disentitled for recruitment in police/Government job, it will be an extreme decision which will result into serious injustice to genuine and otherwise innocent candidates.

The Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, opined that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. This is an Herculean task. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. The allegations of harassment of husband''s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have different complexion. The Apex Court emphasized the need of scrutiny with great care and circumspection. Needless to mention that false complaint takes place in variety of cases/offences including matrimonial matters. Thus in case of exoneration on basis of compromise and benefit of doubt it needs to be meticulously examined what are the basis for exoneration. This aspect is already dealt with by Supreme Court in aforesaid reproduced paragraphs.

As analyzed above, in my opinion, the respondents are bound to apply mind about the nature of the case and reason for exoneration etc. Respondents may appoint a Screening Committee of expert officers for this purpose. There has to be application of mind to see whether benefit of doubt is given because the witnesses have turned hostile or because there is some serious flaw in the prosecution. It also needs to be seen whether there is any possibility of involvement of the candidate in similar nature of crime in future. The Apex Court in para 34 and 35, reproduced above, opined that the decision of Screening Committee can be put to judicial scrutiny only if it is malafide or actuated by extraneous considerations. The Apex Court also dealt with the case of exoneration on compromise. It is opined that Screening Committee needs to examine such cases and may reject the candidature if it is found that the compromise is dubious.

In the considered opinion of this Court, in the present case, there is no material to show whether respondents have meticulously examined individual cases of the petitioners on the basis of relevant consideration mentioned above. In the light of aforesaid, in my opinion, this aspect needs to be considered in the light of judgment of Mehar Singh (supra). In the light of recent judgment of Supreme Court in Mehar Singh which deals with recruitment in disciplined police force, cases cited by petitioners are of no assistance to them. Petitioners have not chosen to challenge validity of Annexure R/2, wherein the respondents have declared certain offences as "moral turpitude". In absence of challenge to Annexure R/2, I am not inclined to examine its validity or correctness.

Thus, without setting aside the impugned orders herein, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to consider the aforesaid aspect and decide the suitability of the petitioners for appointment. It will be open for the respondents to constitute a Screening Committee for this purpose. It is made clear that it will be open for the Screening Committee/department to accept or reject the candidature of the petitioners after due consideration of relevant aspects discussed in this judgment. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners on merits. This needs to be examined by the respondents. This entire exercise must be completed within 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Outcome shall be communicated to the petitioners.

With the aforesaid, petitions are disposed of. No Costs.

In the light of said judgment, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the question of suitability of petitioner for appointment. The respondents, for this purpose, may constitute a Screening Committee. It will be open for the Screening Committee/department to accept or reject the candidature of the petitioner after due consideration of relevant aspects discussed in the judgment of Dilip Kumar Samadhiya (supra). Petitioner shall submit the representation along with the copy of this judgment before respondents. Respondents, in turn, shall consider the entitlement without getting prejudiced by impugned order and pass appropriate orders within 60 days. Outcome shall be communicated to the petitioner. Petition is disposed of.