(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and assailing the order Annexure P/1 dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Director General of Police, Bhopal seeking direction to appoint him this petition has been filed.
(2.) It is pleaded that in the year 2013, the respondent issued an advertisement to fill-up the post of Constable (Driver). Being holder of a driving licence, he applied and was declared passed in the recruitment test through Professional Examination Board. After qualifying the written examination and merit he was subjected to physical endurance and measurement test. After interview, he was declared provisionally selected subject to character verification and also of antecedents. In the said report, it was disclosed by the petitioner that against him offence under Section 279 and 427 of the IPC has been registered by Police Station Kundipura, District Chhindwara wherein after settlement, he was acquitted dropping the proceedings in compromise. However, considering the said criminal antecedents, which may amount to moral turpitude Annexure P/1 was passed denying appointment to the petitioner, which entails him to file this petition.
(3.) Respondents by filing their return has not disputed that the petitioner has applied to the post of Constable (Driver) in furtherance to the examination and he was selected in the written test. It is said that from the verification of the antecedents, he was found involved in a Criminal Case No. 264/2010 registered for an offence under Sections 279 and 427 of the IPC. It is further said that the order of acquittal has been passed on the basis of settlement with the complainant. However, it cannot be said to be clean acquittal. Relying upon a judgment of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. vs. Mehar Singh, 2013 7 SCC 685 it is urged that looking to the said judgment the benefit as prayed cannot be derived by the petitioner. However, the order impugned (Annexure P/1) has rightly been passed.