P.BASHEER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed by the applicant in OA No.496/2013 challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal by which his application came to be rejected.

(2.) The short facts of the case would disclose as under: The petitioner/applicant applied for the post of Public Prosecutor in response to advertisement No.51/2012. Petitioner was one among the candidates selected for interview after the written test and he was included in the list of candidates to be recommended for appointment. He was rank No.29. The UPSC had intimated him that he has been recommended to the post of Public Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI'). He was examined by a Medical board on 27/9/2012 and he was asked to submit all his certificates for verification. He submitted the requisite certificates on 8/10/2010. By yet another communication dated 17/5/2013, he was informed that his case is under consideration with the Department of Personnel and Training and a decision is awaited. Since there was inordinate delay in making the appointment, petitioner preferred OA No.496/2013 seeking for a direction to appoint him to the said post under the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Tribunal by order dated 14/8/2014 directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Public Prosecutor on the basis of his merit and rank. The respondents however filed OP (CAT) No. 22/2015 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The said Original petition was allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. On such consideration, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application on a finding that the respondents were justified in cancelling the candidature of the applicant as Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal had erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the involvement of the petitioner in a murder case in which he was acquitted several years back was the sole reason for denying him the opportunity for the aforesaid employment. It is contended that he was honourably acquitted in the case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed before us the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 2018 SC 4895). That was a case in which a candidate who had applied for a post in Judicial Service was denied appointment on account of moral turpitude. He was alleged to have got involved at the age of 21 years in an offence charged u/s 376 of I.P.C . The allegation against him was that he was travelling with another person in an autorickshaw that was following the autorickshaw in which the prime accused who was charged u/s 376 I.P.C . was travelling along with the girl in question. The Apex Court having considered the factual aspects involved in the case and after referring to judgment in Pawan Kumar. v. State of Haryana [(1996) 4 SCC 17] having considered the expression "moral turpitude", held at paragraph 10 as under:-