AJAY YADAV Vs. STATE OF MP & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 14/09/2018 passed by Director General of Police, MP, Bhopal, by which the petitioner has been disqualified for appointment on the post of Constable on the ground that a criminal case for the offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 342, 506-B of Penal Code and Sec. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered against him and although the witnesses had turned hostile and he was already acquitted but previous conduct of the petitioner makes him unfit for recruitment to the post of Constable in the Police Department.

(2.) Challenging the order passed by respondent No.2, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in his verification form, had not suppressed any information. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2012 and by judgment dated 24/08/2013, passed by Special Judge (SC & ST, Atrocities Act), Morena in Special Case No.92 of 2013 had acquitted him of all the charges because the compromise had taken place between the parties and the petitioner was acquitted of offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 342, 506-B of Penal Code on the basis of compromise and since the witnesses had turned hostile on the question of commission of offence under Sec. 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, accordingly, he was acquitted. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Constable in Police Department. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and he was qualified and later on, the petitioner also cleared the physical test. In the verification form, the petitioner has specifically disclosed that he was tried for an offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 506-B, 342, 506-B of Penal Code and Sec. 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and he has been acquitted. However, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, 2016 8 SCC 471, the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled by respondent no.2 (although the order dated 14/09/2018, Annexure P1 has been passed by Inspector General of Police and not Director General of Police).

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that it is well-established principle of law that mere acquittal in the criminal case would not give a vested right to an employee/candidate who is seeking recruitment in the Police Department. The authorities can still consider the effect of acquittal (whether it was honourable or benefit of doubt) for assessing the desirability of the candidate in the Police Department.