MITHUN UIKEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):-

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was duly selected on the post of Constable after appearing in the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2013. It is further submitted that by order dtd. 23/1/2015 petitioner was informed that his candidature to the post of Constable has been rejected by the respondent on the ground of registration of a criminal case. It is further submitted that petitioner is also aggrieved by the circular issued by the Govt. Madhya Pradesh dtd. 5/6/2003 on which was made for the purpose of denying character verification. It is further submitted that the order dtd. 23/1/2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent is without application of mind and cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that at the time of character verification, petitioner himself disclosed that a case is registered against him. Despite the compromise being there, the respondents passed the order holding that the petitioner has failed in character verification therefore, he is declared unfit for the services and his selection has been cancelled. It is further submitted that various others similarly situated person against whom the cases have been registered or who have been acquitted on the basis of compromise are in service. It is further submitted that circular dtd. 5/6/2003 has discrepancies as offence related 354 of I.P.C. is not included and moral turpitude but the offence under Sec. 427 of I.P.C. which is simple in nature has been included in moral turpitude.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State fairly submits that petitioner involved in a criminal case and he was prosecuted for offences under Ss. 506, 427, 323 and 34 of I.P.C. During pendency of the trial, there was a compounding of offences between the complainant side and accused person. The learned Trial Court allowed the offences to be compounded by the order dtd. 4/2/2010 and the petitioner was declared acquitted in term of compromise. It is further submitted that on the account of involvment in criminal case, the petitioner has been held to be disqualified for appointment in police force. The Police force is disciplined force and high standard of integrity and character antecedents is desirable from the member of police force. It is further submitted that the case of petitioner was duly placed before the Screening Committee on 30/8/2014, the petitioner presented his own case before the Screening Committee and upon consideration, it was found that the member of police force should have character antecedents clean from any cloud. It was further recorded by the Committee that it is a desirable that the member of police force should be a peace loving person in his personal life, should have a model character. Furthermore, non-involvement in criminal activities is highly desirable from member of police and as petitioner was involved in a case under Sec. 427 of I.P.C. which as per the circular dtd. 5/6/2003 comes under offence involving moral turpitude, for such reason petitioner is not entitled for being appointed in the police force. Learned counsel for respondent/State relied upon judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh 2013 (7) SCC 685, Parvej Khan v. State of M.P. and Ors, 2015 (2) SCC 591 and Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2016 (8) SCC 471 where Apex Court has held that where employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded the criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.