PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 02-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR
v
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-8935 of 2022)
DECEMBER 02, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Service Law: Appointment for the post of Police Constable –
Disclosure in the verification form – Appellant while applying for
the post of police constable disclosed in verification form the fact
of his being tried for offence under s.498A IPC, for which he was
later acquitted – His candidature was rejected – Appellant filed
writ petition before the High Court – Single Judge of the High Court
set aside the cancellation of candidature with all consequential
benefits – Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal
and set aside order of Single Judge – Hence instant appeal – Held:
In the verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the
offence under s.498A of IPC and as such there was no supression
of facts – Appointment should not be denied solely on the ground
that he was tried under s.498A of IPC and that too, for the offence,
alleged to have happened long ago and for which he was even
acquitted seven years before he applied for the post of Constable –
On the principle of no work no pay, the appellant held entitled to
all the benefits from the date of actual appointment.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The offence for which he was tried ultimately
resulted into acquittal had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute
which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court. Under the
circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant
could not have been denied the appointment solely on the
aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section
498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened
in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006
may be on settlement (between husband and wife). [Para 6][845-
E-F]
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 841
841
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
2. The Division Bench of the High Court has materially
erred in denying the appointment to the appellant on the post of
Constable and has materially erred in quashing and setting aside
the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge. However, at
the same time, on the principle of no work no pay, the appellant
shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual
appointment. The respondent(s) are directed to appoint the
appellant to the post of Constable, as otherwise, he was found to
be meritorious and eligible for the post of Constable within a
period of four weeks from today. However, it is observed that he
shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual
appointment only. [Paras 8 and 9][846-B-D]
Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC
471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 - relied
on.
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and
Anr. v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 – held
inapplicable.
Rohit Naresh Agarwal v. Union of India (2013) 204
DLT 401 (DB) – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 7 SCR 445  
relied on
Para 2.1
(2021) 10 SCC 136
held inapplicable
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-
8935 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2020 and 04.02.2022
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Main Seat Jabalpur in WA No.723/
2018 & RP No. 672/2021.
S. K. Gangele, Sr. Adv., Ms. Priya Sharma, Prathvi Raj Chauhan,
Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Ankita Chaudhry, Dy. AG, Ankit Mishra, Sunny Choudhry,
Shreyas Balaji, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment(s)
and order(s) dated 10.02.2020 and 04.02.2022 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal
No. 723/2018 and Review Petition No. 672/2021 respectively, by which,
the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal
preferred by the State and has quashed and set aside the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.
18388/2014 and setting aside the order cancelling the candidature of the
appellant herein as Police Constable, the original writ petitioner has
preferred the present appeals.
2. Appellant herein applied for the post of Police Constable. In
the verification form he disclosed of his being tried for an offence under
Section 498A of the IPC. However, as he was involved in the criminal
case earlier, though he was acqu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.