DILIP KUMAR SAMADHIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions involve similar question of facts and law and therefore, on the joint request of parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner is working on the post of Constable pursuant to his appointment 24.07.2010. Pursuant to advertisement for direct recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector, the petitioner submitted his candidature after obtaining permission from the department. The petitioner appeared in the qualifying examination for the said post and was declared qualified. Petitioner also passed the physical test and in final result the petitioner was declared as selected for the post of Sub Inspector (District). The petitioner was directed to undergo training at Police Training Centre, Sagar, but he was not permitted to participate in the training. In this petition, an interim order was passed on 10.06.2013 on the basis of Indore Bench order directing the respondents to send the petitioner for training. Thereafter by order dated 11.07.2013, the petitioner was informed that his candidature / selection has been cancelled. The petitioner filed WP No. 5108/2013 to assail this order. In the impugned order dated 11.07.2013 it is stated that during verification of petitioner's antecedents it was found that crime No.838/2007 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under sections 294, 323, 325, 341, 506 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner was exonerated by the Court on the basis of compromise (Rajinama) on 02.01.2009, the said offences amount to moral turpitude. It is further stated that on 23.01.2009 the petitioner was exonerated by the Court from the offences under sections 294, 323, 341, 427 and 506 IPC on the basis of compromise and exonerated from the offence under section 336 IPC on the basis that charges are not proved. It is stated in the order that the offence under section 427 is not a normal offence and it amounts to moral turpitude. In another crime No. 138/10 which involve the offences under sections 341, 294, 323, 506B, 427 and 34 IPC Petitioner is exonerated on the basis of compromise. It is the stand of the respondents that the police personnel performs sensitive nature of duty hence his conduct should be beyond suspicion and doubt. The police personnel who is obliged to protect the law and order must possess impeccable integrity. On the basis of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of (Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh, 2013 7 SCC 685) it was held that the petitioner's appointment in the police service will not be proper. This order is called in question in this petition,

(3.) Similarly in WP No. 5004/2013 the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of Rajinama from the offences under section 451, 294, 506 and 34 IPC. It is stated in the order that section 451 amounts to moral turpitude. The reason for rejection in all these matters is same.