THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus BUNTY

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 14-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
BUNTY
(Civil Appeal No. 3046 of 2019)
MARCH 14, 2019
    [ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law: Appointment – On the post of constable – Denied
on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case for commission
of offence u/ss. 392 and 411 of IPC – Writ petition challenging the
denial order – Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition
– In writ appeal, Division Bench of High Court held that appointment
order should have been issued as the candidate was acquitted in
the criminal case giving him benefit of doubt – On appeal, held: If
acquittal in criminal case is based on benefit of doubt or any other
technical reason, the employer can take into consideration all the
relevant facts to take an appropriate decision as to the fitness of
incumbent for appointment/continuance in service – In the present
case, the criminal case against the respondent/candidate was of
serious kind involving moral turpitude – Since the candidate was
acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, clouds cannot be said to
be clear as to his antecedents, and hence appointment could not
have followed as a matter of course.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In case acquittal in a criminal case is based on
the benefit of doubt or any other technical reason, the employer
can take into consideration all relevant facts to take an appropriate
decision as to the fitness of an incumbent for appointment/
continuance in service. [Para 13] [510-C-D]
2. In the present case, all throughout during selection
process, the criminal case was pending consideration and as
certain witnesses have turned hostile which is not unusual.  The
respondent knew very well about the pendency of the case against
him and it is not uncommon to see that witnesses turned hostile.
In the aforesaid circumstance, it cannot be said to be case of
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 504
504
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
505
clear acquittal, in criminal case, he was given benefit of doubt not
acquitted because the case against him was found to be false.
Thus, due to such acquittal appointment could not have followed
as a matter of course as observed by the Division Bench of the
High Court. [Para 8] [508-B-D]
3. Considering the nature of allegation in the case, it was a
criminal case of impersonation as a police officer and thereby
committing the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC.
It was a case of the serious kind, which involved moral turpitude
and having not been granted the clean acquittal in the criminal
case merely by the grant of benefit of the doubt, clouds cannot be
said to be clear as to the antecedents of the respondent.  Thus,
the perception formed by the Screening Committee that he was
unfit to be inducted in the disciplined police force was appropriate.
Therefore, decision of Scrutiny Committee could not be said to
be such which warranted judicial interference. [Para 9]
[508-D-F]
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v.
Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432;
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Parvez Khan (2015)
2 SCC 591; Union Territory,Chandigarh Administration
and Others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another (2018) 1
SCC 797 : [2018] 1 SCR 112 ; Avtar Singh v. Union of
India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR
445 – relied on.
Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and
Others (2015) 2 SCC 377 : [2014] 11 SCR 155 –
distinguished.
Case Law Reference
  [2013] 13 SCR 432
   relied on
Para 5
(2015) 2 SCC 591
   relied on
Para 6
[2018] 1 SCR 112
   relied on
Para 6
[2016] 7 SCR 445
   relied on
Para 7
[2014] 11 SCR 155
  distinguished
Para 7
 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.v. BUNTY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.3046 of
2019
From the final impugned Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2017
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal
No.535 of 2017
Rahul Kaushik, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya
Satyam, Siddharth Chakravorty, Arjun Garg, Advs. for the Appellants.
Pourush Ranka, Anup Jain, Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
      JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others are in appeal as
against the reversal of the judgment and order passed by the Single
Judge dismissing the writ application questioning the decision of the
Screening Committee holding the respondent/Bunty to be unfit for
a

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