RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDORIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is being filed being aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the respondents whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is total disregard to the order passed by the Court vide order dated 01.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.3719/2014 (S) and the petitioner has been declared to be ineligible for recruitment in the police department. It is submitted that the inaction on part of the respondent No.4 is not only arbitrary and malafide and appears to be an outcome of malafide but also contents in nature as he was well aware of passing of the order passed by this Court dated 01.09.2016 and despite of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court has categorically recorded the finding with respect to the fact that no offence containing in moral turpitude is made out against the petitioner has directed the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment then also the respondent No.4 has rejected the representation of the petitioner holding that the offence under Sections 452 and 323 of IPC are the offences falling under the definition of moral turpitude and are not offences of simple category. Therefore, on the recommendation of the committee the representation has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges in the criminal case vide judgment of acquittal dated 12.07.2012. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 01.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.3719/2014 (S) and has argued that the Hon'ble High Court has considered the aforesaid aspect in the case of Ravindra Kumar Pandoria Vs. State of M.P. & Others, and has held as under :

(3.) It is stated that despite the specific finding being recorded by this Court in the earlier round of litigation that the petitioner has been acquitted and no offence of moral turpitude is made out against the petitioner then also the impugned order has been passed holding that the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of a compromise in the matter vide judgment dated 12.07.2017. The same does not amount to the honourable acquittal and even the offence under Sections 452 and 323 being offences of moral turpitude. The petitioner was not found fit for appointment to the post in the respondents' department. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the reply submitted by the authorities. The reply submitted by the authorities on affidavit wherein they have categorically observed as under:-