High Court

Legal Reasoning

911 WP No.10345.2025-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 10345 OF 2025UTTAM BABUREDDY SANGANGIREVERSUSSHUBHAM WAMANREDDY RAMASANE AND OTHERS...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. G. L. DeshpandeAGP for Respondents-State : Mr. Vaishali S. Chaudhari Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Pradnya Talekar h/f TalekarAnd Associates (Through V.C.)...CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.Dated : August 20, 2025ORDER :-1.The petitioner takes exception to the judgment andorder dated 12.08.2025, passed by the learned Member,Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Aurangabad.2.The petitioner alongwith respondent No. 1 and othersapplied for the post of Police Patil of village Kinhi, Tq. Degloor.They underwent written and oral examination as well. Thepetitioner was thereafter selected for the post of the Police Patil.The petitioner secured 72 marks while respondent No. 1 got 59marks.3.Since the petitioner was found to have secured highestmarks, he was selected for the post. Respondent No. 1 made a 911 WP No.10345.2025-2- complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Appointing Authority(Respondent No. 4) alleging that the petitioner have not producedCharacter Certificate. Respondent No. 4 called upon the petitionerto submit the Character Certificate from the Superintendent ofPolice, Nanded. In turn, the Superintendent of Police, Nandedissued the certificate indicating that the petitioner to have beenconvicted for the offence of gambling, punishable under Section12-A of The Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act and the crimewas registered against the petitioner for the offence punishableunder Section 65-1(b) of The Maharashtra Prohibition Act. Afterhaving considered the petitioner’s claim, the Sub-DivisionalMagistrate / respondent No. 4 found the said Character Certificateto be relevant and issued the petitioner appointment order. Inshort, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate turned down the respondentNo. 1’s complaint. Respondent No. 1, therefore, approached theMAT by filing application (Original Application No. 348 of 2024).After having heard the parties thereto, the MAT passed the orderimpugned herein.4.We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner,learned AGP for respondents-State and learned Advocate forrespondent No. 1. 911 WP No.10345.2025-3- 5.It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that theoffence of gambling was petty crime. It was not pending againstthe petitioner on the date he preferred the application for the postof Police Patil. The petitioner was simply sentenced to pay a fine ofRs. 200/-. Even no jail term was imposed. So far as the pendencyof crime under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act is concerned, it wassubmitted that the said case was closed in terms of Section 258 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Learned Advocate for thepetitioner relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of TheState Bank of India Vs. P. Soupramaniane (AIR 2019 SC2187) to submit that even the conviction for offence under Section324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been held to be not anoffence involving moral turpitude. The respondent in the said casewas allowed to continue in service with the petitioner-State Bank ofIndia. Learned Advocate for the petitioner then relied on thejudgment dated 31.07.2025 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court incase of Yog Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.(C.W.P. No. 6233 of 2022) to submit that the offence punishableunder Sections 323 and 325 of IPC were of not such gravity todisentitle a person to continue in public employment. LearnedAdvocate, therefore, prays to allow the petition. 911 WP No.10345.2025-4- 6.Learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 and the learnedAGP for State on the other hand would submit that a Clause in theadvertisement indicate that a candidate / applicant was supposedto produce Character Certificate. To be specific, we reproduce theClause phraseology in the advertisement.fuoM o dk;Zi/nrh] vVh o ‘kFkhZ %&1- ---------2- ----------3- -----------4- vtZnkjkps pkfjå; fu”dyad vlY;kckcrps laca/khr iksyhl LVs’kupspkfjå; izek.ki= dkxni= iMrkG.khP;k osGh lknj dj.ks vko’;djkghy-7.It was further submitted that the petitioner did notproduce the Character Certificate. It was produced only after therespondent No. 1 made a complaint then the Sub-DivisionalMagistrate called upon the petitioner to place before him theCharacter Certificate. The petitioner thereafter applied in themonth of February 2025 and obtained the Character Certificateindicating the aforesaid two crimes against him. According to them,the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable underSection 12-A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act woulddisentitle him for the post of Police Patil. According to them, the 911 WP No.10345.2025-5- services to be performed by the Police Patil would indicate thatinvolvement of the petitioner in prohibition and gambling caseswould render him unfit / disqualify to hold the post. They thereforeurge for dismissal of the petition.8.It is not in dispute that the petitioner pleaded guilty tothe offence punishable under Section 12-A of the MaharashtraPrevention of Gambling Act and therefore, sentenced to pay fine ofRs. 200/-. This happened just a month or two before the petitionerpreferred an application for the post of Police Patil. Although theoffence of gambling may sound to be a petty offence, in ourconsidered view, the same would have very much baring on thepetitioner holding a post of Police Patil. By no stretch of theimagination, for the post of Police Patil, the said crime could beturned to be petty offence. Since the petitioner pleaded guilty tothe said offence, we cannot sit in appeal against his conviction, inthis proceeding to find whether he was really involved in gambling.9.So far as the prohibition case is concerned, the samewas closed in terms of Section 258 of CrPC. Consequence thereof isthat of discharge, if no charge or plea is recorded and if the case isclosed post recording of some evidence in the case, the result is of 911 WP No.10345.2025-6- acquittal. The case was closed on the ground that the petitionerand the other co-accused therein did not appear before the Court.It was the contention that the prosecution failed to secure presenceof the accused including the petitioner herein, before the TrialCourt. As such, the closure of the above-said case before recordingof plea of guilty or framing of the charge would at the most bedischarged from the case. No honourable acquittal.10.We find the petitioner’s involvement in the offence ofgambling and prohibition case disentitle him to continue to hold theoffice of Police Patil. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere withthe order impugned herein. The petition, therefore, fails and thesame is dismissed. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R. G. AVACHAT, J.)Omkar Joshi