(Passed on this 22 nd day of September, 2015) Per Mrs. S.R. Waghmare, J .
By this writ appeal u/s 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypit Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellant / State of Madhya Pradesh is aggrieved 2by order dated 31/07/2014 passed in W.P. No.9412/2014 (S) passed by this Court allowing the writ petition of the respondent / petitioner Abhijit Singh Pawar.
Briefly stated the facts of the case in nutshell are that the respondent/petitioner Abhijit Singh Pawar had appeared in the examination held for selection on the post of Sub Inspector (District Police Force). A character certification is required under Section 12(3) 14(2) of the M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1996 as mentioned in the advertisement. The Candidature of the respondent/petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for offence under section 323, 325 & 506 of the i.p.c., though in the said case he was acquitted on the ground of compromise. The cancellation was challenged in the writ petition no.9412/2014 and the writ Court placing reliance on, Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs. Mehar Singh (Civil Appeal No.4842/2013 decided on 27/02/2013) and Dinesh Parihar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (W.P. No.896/2014 decided on 18/06/2014), considered the fact that the petitioner had never suppressed the factum of the criminal case registered against them and were honourably acquitted and hence having participated in the process of selection and found to be eligible otherwise, had 3directed the respondent to consider the petitioners appointment. It was also held in that case that if the concerned person has been acquitted honourably then the stigma or proof of any criminal charge against the acquitted person would not stand and the Court had set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to take appropriate steps for issuance of appointment to the petitioner. But the appellant/State in the present case also contended that granting appointment to the petitioner in the police department in the light of the said judgment does not arise and hence the present writ appeal filed by the appellant/State.
Counsel for the appellant/State has submitted that the learned Single Judge of the Writ Court had erred in allowing the petition in setting aside the impugned order primarily because the facts of the case of Mehar Singh (Supra) were distinguishable on the basis of the fact that in that case there was a standing order 398 of Delhi Police Standing Committee, whereas such order in the State of M.P and the rules of the Government Services are regulated by the State of M.P Police Regulations.
Paragraph 54 of the State regulations relates to the appointment of police employees after dismissal of service due to judicial cases against them and the said paragraph mandates that no person of criminal record be in service 4and also the screening committee can declare the candidate unfit after examining the case. And in the present case the scrutiny committee has been constituted by senior officers of the Police Department and the respondent /petitioner has been declared to be unfit. Counsel submitted that mere acquittal would not entitle the petitioner to have granted appointment and Counsel submitted that in the present case the acquittal of the case was not honourable; but on the basis of the compromise. Counsel also relied on State of Madhya Pradesh V. Parvej Khan whereby the Court had deprecated the practice of appointing such candidates.
Counsel submitted that the respondent/ petitioner was clearly disqualified and Counsel prayed that the impugned order passed by the Single Judge in the writ petition be set aside.
On considering the above submissions, we find that recently in the matter of Principal Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. V. Methu Meda (W.A. No.1090/2013), the writ appellate Court had upheld the order of the writ Court under similar circumstances by holding thus:
Keeping in view the aforesaid as the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case and as an identically placed persons, namely Ramesh is being sent on training as stated by the Assistant Solicitor General before the Bombay High Court, there is no justification in taking a different view in case of the petitioner, 5who has also been acquitted and who has categorically stated the factum about the criminal case while submitting an attestation form.
Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue an order for sending the petitioner on training and respondents shall permit the petitioner to practice in the training, which is going to commence with effect from 21-10-2013. Not only this, the petitioner shall also be entitled for all consequential benefits including seniority, notional fixation of salary etc., however shall not be entitled for backwages.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants who submits that in this case, the very fact that respondent was involved in a criminal case makes him in eligible to continue in service on account of circular no.02/10 issued under letter no. E-32023/TRG.SEC/ADM- I/CIRCULARS/2010/1157 dt:31/03/2010, it has been directed that, any candidate found involved in any criminal case whether it is finalised or pending, should not be allowed to join training. Hence, in the light of said circular, the respondent was not allowed to join in this RTC for attending basic training w.e.f 16/04/2012. It has been submitted that the interim order granted was based upon the interim orders only passed in the case of Ramesh Vs. Union of India by the High Court of Bombay.
Having considered the facts of this case and considering that respondent has not been convicted of the offence in which he was involved, but stands acquitted, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
and also in this writ appeal, placing reliance on Dinesh Parihar (Supra), we find that this writ appeal is without merit. There is no infirmity in the order passed by 6the learned Single Judge. The accused and the complainant as in the case of Methu Meda (Supra) have indulged in squabbles and allegedly inflicted injuries on persons. It is not unknown in rural areas to lodge false complaints and it is also not known in rural India to ensnare all and sundry due to petty rivalry and in this case also we find that the learned Single Judge has considered the matter in detail and has given cogent and valid reasons and based on precedent by the Apex Court does not call for any interference. This appeal without merit and therefore, is dismissed as such.
No orders as to cost.
C.C. as per rules (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge sumathi