PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. on 2 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment(s)and order(s) dated 10.02.2020 and 04.02.2022 passed by the DivisionBench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ AppealNo. 723/2018 and Review Petition No. 672/2021 respectively, by which,the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appealpreferred by the State and has quashed and set aside the judgment andorder passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.18388/2014 and setting aside the order cancelling the candidature of theappellant herein as Police Constable, the original writ petitioner haspreferred the present appeals.

2. Appellant herein applied for the post of Police Constable. Inthe verification form he disclosed of his being tried for an offence underSection 498A of the IPC. However, as he was involved in the criminalcase earlier, though he was acquitted, his candidature was rejected byorder dated 16.12.2014. The appellant filed the writ petition before theHigh Court against the cancellation of his selection/candidature and non-appointment. By judgment and order dated 21.08.2017 the learned SingleJudge allowed Writ Petition No. 18388/2014 and set aside the cancellationof his candidature and non-appointment and directed the State to appointhim as a Police Constable with all consequential benefits including 50%back wages from the date on which other batchmates came to beappointed on the post of Constable.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge, the State preferred writ appeal beforethe High Court. By the impugned judgment and order and relying uponsome observations made by this Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs.Union of India & Ors.; (2016) 8 SCC 471 and other decisions, theDivision Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and setaside the order passed by the learned Single Judge by observing that ifthe candidate is found to be involved in a criminal case, even in a case ofacquittal and/or even in a case where the employee has made declarationtruthfully of a concluded criminal case the employer still has the right toconsider antecedents, it cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

2.2 The review petition is dismissed by the High Court.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment(s) andorder(s) passed by the High Court, the original writ petitioner haspreferred the present appeals.

3. Shri S.K. Gangele, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts andBcircumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court hasmaterially erred in allowing the appeal and quashing and setting asidethe well-reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judgeby which the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the cancellationof candidature and non-appointment of the appellant as Police Constable.

C3.1 It is submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of the HighCourt ought to have appreciated the fact that the case against theappellant was not for the serious offence but was for the offence underSection 498A of IPC which was out of a matrimonial dispute.

3.2 It is submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of the HighDCourt has not appreciated and considered the fact that the case for theoffence under Section 498A of IPC was resulted in acquittal in the year2006 in view of the settlement between husband and wife and theapplications for the post of Constable were invited in the year 2013/2014. It is submitted that the appellant could not have been punished forwhatever has happened before 7-8 years and that too, at that time theEappellant was aged about 18 years and pursuing his studies. It is submittedthat therefore the appellant could not have been denied the appointmentmerely on the ground that he was involved in a case for the offenceunder Section 498A of IPC and that too before 7 years and which resultedinto acquittal.F

4. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf ofthe respondent – State while opposing the present appeals has reliedupon the decision of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) aswell as on a recent decision of this Court in the case of RajasthanRajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya;G(2021) 10 SCC 136.

4.1 It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision, it is observed andheld by this Court that when a candidate/employee is involved in a criminalcase it is ultimately for the employer to appoint such a person havingcriminal antecedents.

H

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant appliedfor the post of Constable in the year 2013 and as such was found to bemeritorious and was found eligible to be appointed as Constable. In theverification form itself he declared that he was tried for the offenceunder Section 498A of IPC earlier. Therefore, as such there was nosuppression on the part of the appellant in not disclosing true and correctfacts. It is also required to be noted that the appellant came to be acquittedfor the offence under Section 498A of IPC vide judgment and orderdated 30.10.2006 i.e., 7 years before he applied for the post of Constable.From the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Trial Court it appearsthat there was a matrimonial dispute which ended in settlement and theoriginal complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and wasdeclared hostile in view of settlement out of the court and the otherprosecution witness(s) examined in the case did not corroborate theprosecution story. Thus, it can be seen that the appellant did not face theprosecution for the other offences of IPC. Therefore, for whatever hashappened in the year 2001 and the criminal case for the offence underSection 498A resulted in acquittal in the year 2006, the appellant shouldnot be denied the appointment in the year 2013/2014. The offence forwhich he was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal had arisen out of thematrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court.Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, theappellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on theaforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498Aof IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be onsettlement (between husband and wife).

7. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of thisCourt in the case of Anil Kanwariya (supra) relied upon by the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State is concerned onfacts the said decision shall not be applicable. It was a case where thecandidate as such suppressed the antecedents and by suppressing thematerial facts obtained appointment by fraud/misrepresentation andsuppression of material fact. In that case the employee was convictedfor the offences under Section 343 and 323 of IPC. Therefore, at thetime of appointment he was found to be convicted. Therefore, his AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Atermination came to be upheld by this Court. In the present case such isnot the situation. Neither there was any suppression of material fact onthe part of the appellant nor he was convicted for any offence under theIPC. The alleged incident was of the year 2001 which resulted intoacquittal in the year 2006 and he applied for the post of Constable in theyear 2013/2014.B

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theDivision Bench of the High Court has materially erred in denying theappointment to the appellant on the post of Constable and has materiallyerred in quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by thelearned Single Judge.C

However, at the same time, on the principle of no work no pay,the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actualappointment.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above theDimpugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Division Bench of theHigh Court is/are quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passedby the learned Single Judge to the extent setting aside the order ofcancelling the candidature and non-appointment of the appellant asConstable is hereby restored. The respondent(s) are directed to appointthe appellant to the post of Constable, as otherwise, he was found to beEmeritorious and eligible for the post of Constable within a period of fourweeks from today. However, it is observed that he shall be entitled to allthe benefits from the date of actual appointment only. Present appealsare allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

FDevika Gujral(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)

Appeals partly allowed.

G

H