VIRENDRA JATAV Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-P/5) whereby the respondent No.5 declared the petitioner as "unsuitable" for employment in the Police Department.

(2.) The relevant facts are in narrow compass. The petitioner submitted his candidature pursuant to an advertisement issued for the post of Constable (GD). After cracking the physical test, written test etc., the petitioner was selected. He was required to fill up a verification form. In Col. 12 of the verification form (Annexure-P/2), the petitioner clearly disclosed that he was facing a criminal case for allegedly committing offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore decided the said case (ST No.43/2008) by judgment dated 20.10.2008. The Court acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. Copy of the judgment aforesaid is filed as Annexure-P/3.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the impugned order dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure-P/5) and urged that since petitioner's acquittal by judgment dated 20.08.2008 is an "acquittal on merits", the Scrutiny Committee and the respondent No.5 have committed an error in treating the petitioner as "unsuitable". The reason assigned in the operative para of the impugned order dated 26.10.2018 is liable to be interfered with in view of judgment of Supreme Court report in (Inspector General of Police Vs. S. Samuthiram, 2013 1 SCC 598).