STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & Ors. v. ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2015 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No. 132 of 2015. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants. Siddhartha Dave, (A.C.), Ms. Jantiben AO, Advs. for the Respondent. H STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR 1135 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted. This appeal challenges correctness of the judgment and order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Appeal No.132 of 2015.

#2. In 2012, the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh invited applications for filling up the posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Inspectors of Police. Clause 1.13 of the advertisement dealt with character verification of the candidates. True translation of said clause 1.13 along with Note appended thereto was to the following effect: “1.13 Appointment: The character verification shall be carried out about the selected candidates and the appointment only of the candidates found in the selection list upon finding them fit in character. The medical examination of the candidates also shall be conducted. The candidate to be medically fit for the entitlement of the appointment is also required. Note: To save time and for the convenience, the verification form is sent earlier to the candidates declared fit to sit in the physical fitness examination, which the candidates have to submit after filling up and the character and earlier verification of all the candidates to appear in interview is made. The candidate who is not selected, his form will not used further. The candidates should fill up full and correct information in the character verification form. They should not provide any false information, incomplete information and semi true information. They should not conceal any information as well. Particularly it is required to fill up the correct information in column no.12. Now according to the new guidelines of Madhya Pradesh Government regarding character verification, to give the undertaking to this effect is required that he has not concealed any fact in the details given by him earlier about the criminal cases.”

#3. The respondent participated in the selection process and as mandated, tendered an affidavit on 22.12.2012 disclosing following information: A B C D E F G H 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R. “I affirm on oath that Case No.592/06 under Sections 323, 325, 506, 34 was registered in Police Station Madhav Nagar against me the deponent. I the deponent myself had come to the court. I was never arrested. The aforesaid case is pending in the Court. In addition no criminal record is registered in any police station anywhere in India, nor has the deponent convicted by the Court in any criminal case.”

#4. According to the disclosure, a case registered in the year 2006 was pending on the date when the affidavit was tendered. However, it appears that within four days, a compromise was entered into between the original complainant and the respondent and an application for compounding the offences was filed under Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure. True translation of relevant portions of the proceedings dated 26.12.2012 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ujjain, M.P. is as under: “The case was perused. This case is listed for the presence of the accused. The accused was taken in judicial custody. ……. The bond forfeiture amount on behalf of the accused was deposited in compliance with the order, vide receipt No.85. The receipt was given to the accused…. At this very stage, Rajiv Rawat submitted an application for compromise under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and expressed that a compromise has been made between him and the accused persons so the permission for compounding be granted. Copy of the application was given to ADPO. The remaining accused persons with Sashank Advocate are present. I heard the matter regarding compromise. The case was perused. It is clear from perusal that the case being of offences under Sections 294, 325/34, 323, 506 Part-2, IPC is fit for compromise. The present complainant is a competent party for the compromise. Hence, the permission for compounding can be granted. The parties submitted a deed of compromise, jointly signed having photographs. The parties were identified by their counsel. Both the parties have stated that the compromise was arrived at voluntarily without any fear and pressure. Hence, the application for compounding was allowed after verification. As a result of A B C D E F G H STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 1137 the composition, the accused persons are acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 325/34, 323, 506 Part-2 IPC. A The bail bonds of the accused persons are discharged.”

#5. The proceedings, thus, indicate that the amount of bond submitted on the earlier occasion had been forfeited for non-compliance; that the respondent was taken in judicial custody and that after the compromise was entered into between the parties, the application for compounding of the offences was allowed.

#6. The respondent was selected in the written examination and was called for medical examination. Around the same time, his character verification was also undertaken. After due consideration of character verification report, the candidature of the respondent was however rejected vide order dated 19.07.2013 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Selection/Recruitment), Police Headquarters, Bhopal. Said order observed as under:- “3-B The services of the persons seeking uniform service/ employment comes under the category different from other services and candidates. The duty of the candidates selected is to maintain law and order of the State and to protect the life and property of the public. The high moral conduct and not to be involved in the criminal activities is required for the police service. 3-C According to the principles about the excellent conduct with the Government in respect of the Government Servants, the Government Servants should be of high character. Since the officers of the Police Department are responsible to control the persons of criminal nature, it is not proper to appoint the persons of criminal record in public interest.”

#7. The respondent being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.9412 of 2013 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore challenging the aforesaid order dated 19.07.2013. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed said writ petition and directed as under: “… The petitioner shall be appointed in case his name finds place in the merit list and is entitled to be appointed as per merit. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, except back wages.” B C D E F G H 1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

#8. The State challenged the decision of the Single Judge by filing Writ Appeal No.132 of 2015, which challenge was found to be without any merit by the Division Bench. The view taken by the Single Judge was thus affirmed by the Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 22.09.2015 which decision is presently under challenge.

#9. Since the respondent, despite being served in the matter had chosen not to enter appearance, this Court requested Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Advocate to assist as Amicus Curiae and appear on behalf of the respondent. We heard Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, learned Advocate for the State and Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent.

#10. It was submitted by Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, learned Advocate that in terms of Rule 12(3) of M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1996, inclusion of a candidate’s name in the list would not confer any right to appointment and that a candidate had to be found suitable in all respects before he could be appointed. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh1, State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Parvez Khan2 and Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and another3 he submitted that the candidature of the respondent was rightly rejected and there being no allegation of mala fides, no interference with the decision in question was called for. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Amicus Curiae, on the other hand, submitted that by virtue of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. composition of an offence would have the effect of an acquittal. He further submitted that the respondent had not suppressed any information and he having been acquitted, the High Court was right in accepting his challenge. Mr. Dave further relied upon the decisions of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others4 and In Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others5.

#11. In Mehar Singh (supra) the selection in question was for the post of Constable (Executive). The offences alleged against Mehar Singh were under Sections 341, 323 and 427 of the IPC. He had arrived