THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusBUNTY

504                      [2019]
               SUPREME COURT    5 S.C.R. 504
                              REPORTS                     [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
                                       v.
                                    BUNTY
                        (Civil Appeal No. 3046 of 2019)
B                              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
C
      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
D     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
E
      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
F     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
G     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

H
                                      504
       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.v. BUNTY                           505


clear acquittal, in criminal case, he was given benefit of doubt not    A
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    B
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,         C
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]                                                               D
      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                  E
      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 –                     F
      distinguished.
                       Case Law Reference
        [2013] 13 SCR 432         relied on            Para 5
       (2015) 2 SCC 591           relied on            Para 6
                                                                        G
       [2018] 1 SCR 112           relied on            Para 6
       [2016] 7 SCR 445           relied on            Para 7
       [2014] 11 SCR 155         distinguished         Para 7

                                                                        H
506            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A            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
B          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 :
C                                  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
D
      Screening Committee holding the respondent/Bunty to be unfit for
      appointment as a constable in the police service of the State of Madhya
      Pradesh.
             3. The respondent applied for the post of a Constable in the year
      2013. He appeared and cleared the Police Constable Recruitment Test
E     (II). Physical endurance test was held on 06.05.2013. He was medically
      examined and selected on 09.05.2014. On 05.06.2014 he was called for
      verification of the marks sheet, caste certificate. He was called for
      police verification by the Screening Committee on 25.02.2015. On
      11.03.2015, the department, on the basis of the Report of the Screening
F     Committee, decided to deny the appointment to the respondent/Bunty
      for the reasons mentioned therein.
             4. It is not in dispute that respondent/Bunty was involved in a
      case involving moral turpitude for the commission of an offence under
      Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC. He was given benefit of doubt in the
G     said case and was acquitted vide judgment and order dated 7.1.2015
      and same has attained finality.
            5. As against the denial of the appointment respondent/Bunty filed
      a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
      Indore. Learned Single Judge of the High Court considered the matter
H
        STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.v. BUNTY                                 507


in extensive detail and relied upon the decision of this Court in              A
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh, (2013)
7 SCC 685, and that the petitioner had appeared before the Screening
Committee and it was found in objectivity by the Screening Committee
that he was involved in a case of moral turpitude and the acquittal was
not clean. He was found unfit for being appointed as Police Constable
                                                                               B
in a disciplined force. Reasons were communicated. Learned Single
Judge also relied upon the decision in State of M.P. and Others v. Dinesh
Singh Parihar and Others, rendered by the Division Bench of the High
Court in Writ Appeal No.724/2014, dismissed the said writ application.
However, the Division Bench, by the impugned judgment and order, has
allowed the writ appeal preferred by the respondent/Bunty on the ground        C
that the judgment of acquittal is based on material on record, he was
acquitted since the offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt,
appointment order has to be issued as a matter of course. Hence, the
appeal by special leave is filed before this Court.
       6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied          D
upon the decisions of this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), 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, to contend that when the Screening Committee has
formed an opinion with objectivity considered the allegations and overall
material the decision is not open to judicial review until and unless it has   E
acted arbitrarily or its decision is perverse. Learned counsel further
submitted that mere acquittal on the ground of benefit of the doubt could
not have enured in favour of the appellant so as to be entitled to
appointment, as a matter of course as observed by the Division Bench
of the High Court.                                                             F
       7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent has relied on a decision of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union
of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and Joginder Singh v. Union
Territory of Chandigarh and Others, (2015) 2 SCC 377. Learned counsel
appearing for the respondent has contended that it was a case of no            G
evidence and with respect to PW.12 also in the representation filed before
the Screening Committee with respect to the said witness the reasons
were assigned why he deposed against the respondent. Thus, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made
out in the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench. The
                                                                               H
508            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A     respondent could not have been termed to be unfit by the Screening
      Committee, in view of the judgment of acquittal.
             8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
      opinion that the respondent had participated in the selection process in
      the year 2013, at that time the said criminal case was pending
B     consideration and he has been acquitted subsequently, vide judgment
      and order dated 7.1.2015 all throughout during selection process the
      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
C     said to be case of 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.
D            9. Considering the nature of allegation in the case, it was a 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
E     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. In the aforesaid factual matrix, decision of Scrutiny
      Committee could not be said to be such which warranted judicial
      interference.
F
            10. Learned Single Judge of the High Court in the factual matrix
      projected, has rightly relied upon the decision in Mehar Singh (supra),
      wherein this Court has observed as under:-
            “35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great
G           responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in
            society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be
            worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police
            force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have
            impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal
            antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or
H
       STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.v. BUNTY                                  509


      discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order       A
      will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely
      exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to
      the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police
      force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of
      taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee.
                                                                               B
      The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final
      unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police
      force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a
      wayward manner by misusing power are in the public domain and
      are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has
      taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the    C
      importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening
      Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons
      who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force.
      At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the
      importance of the trust reposed in it and must
                                                                               D
      treat     all    candidates        with     an      even      hand.”

     11. That apart, when we consider the decision of the three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh (supra) the Court observed:-
      “38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving       E
      moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical
      ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
      reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all
      relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate
      decision as to the continuance of the employee.”
                                                                               F
      12. In Pradeep Kumar (supra) this Court has observed:-
      “15. From the above details, we find that the Screening Committee
      examined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings
      for their acquittal and taken the decision. While deciding whether
      a person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or               G
      discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, nature
      of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable
      acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of
      witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the
      aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking
                                                                               H
510             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A            the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post. As
             pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each and
             every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took the
             decision that the respondents are not suitable for the
             post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed
             is as per Guideline 2(A)(b) an object of
B
             such screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable
             character enter police force. While so, the court cannot substitute
             its views for the decision of the Screening Committee.”

             13. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions makes it clear
C     that 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. The decision taken
      by the Screening Committee in the instant case could not have been
D     faulted by the Division Bench.
            14. Coming to the decision relied upon by the learned counsel
      appearing for the respondent in Joginder Singh (supra) we are of the
      opinion that it was not the case of the decision taken by the Screening
      Committee on due consideration of the material on record of the case.
E     Thus, the decision is distinguishable. In the peculiar facts and
      circumstances of the case, we are inclined to hold that the decision of
      the Screening Committee was appropriate.
             15. Thus, the judgment and order of the Division Bench cannot be
      allowed to be sustained, the same is hereby set aside and the judgment
F     and order passed by the Single Judge are restored. The appeal is,
      accordingly, allowed. No orders as to costs. Pending application(s), if
      any, shall stand disposed of.

      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          Appeal allowed.

G




H