Anil Kumar Balmik vs State Of Madhya pradesh & Ors

1,"Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whethter before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.","vH;FkhZ }kjk vuqizek.ku QkeZ esa mlds fo:) iathc) vijk/k dk ys[k fd;k gSA

2,"while passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.",

3,"The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision .","'kklu ds funsZ'k dzekad ,Q&17&74@2002@lh&1 fnukad 5 twu 2003 ds vuqlkj 457 Hkknfo dk vijk/k uSfrd v/kksiru dh Js.kh esa gksdj xEHkhj izd`fr dk gSA vH;FkhZ dh nks""keqfDr Clean or Honourable Acquittal dh Js.kh esa ugh vkrh gSA

,,"3&,& bl laca/k esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd iqfyl deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok 'krsZ ,oa vkpj.k e-iz- iqfyl jsxqus'ku ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr gS ftlds iSjk Øa- 64 esa ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd iqfyl dk vf/kdkjh vius futh thou esa 'kkafriw.kZ O;ogkj dk vkn'kZ izLrqr djsxk rFkk lHkh izdkj ds i{kikr ls nwj jgsxkA

3&ch& ;wfuQkeZ lsok@ukSdjh pkgus okys O;fDr dh lsok,a vU; lsok okys mEehnokj ls fHkUu Lrj dh Js.kh es vkrh gS iqfyl foHkkx es p;fur mEehnokj dk drZO; izns'k dh dkuwu O;oLFkk ,oa turk dh tku eky dh lqj{kk dk fuoZgu djuk gksrk gSA iqfyl dh lsok es mPPk uSfrd vkpj.k gksuk o vijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ka u gksuk vko';d gSA

3&lh& 'kkldh; lsodks ds laca/k esa 'kklu ds mRre vkpj.k laca/kh fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj 'kkldh; dehZ dks mRre Nfo okyk gksuk pkfg, pqafd iqfyl foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ij vijkf/kd izo`fRr ds yksxksa ij vadq'k yxkus dh ftEesnkjh gksrh gSA vr% tufgr esa vijkf/kd fjdkMZ ds O;fDr dks iqfyl foHkkx esa fu;qDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugh gSA

4,"In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where","vH;FkhZ }kjk vijkf/kd tkudkjh fNikbZ ugha xbZ gSA ,"conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/ verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:-

(e) In case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered and incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion. Ignore such suppression of fact or false information by

condoning the lapse.

(b) where convictionhas been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of

the employee.

(c) If acquittal hasalready been recorded in a case involving 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 giving, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.",

5,"In a case where the employee has made declaration truth fully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents.

And cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.","vH;FkhZ }kjk vijk/k dk mYys[k vuqizek.ku QkeZ esa fd;k x;k gS] ;|fi vH;FkhZ dks U;k;k- } kjk vkjksi izekf.kr ugha ik;s tkus ij ,d vijk/k ls nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gS fdUrq ,slh nks"keqfDr Clean or Honourable Acquittal dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrh gSA vr% vH;FkhZ dks 'kkldh; lsok ds v;ksX; ik;k x;k gSA

6,"In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.","mDr vijk/k lkekU; vijk/k dh Js.kh esa ugh vkrk gSA vr% mDr fcUnq bl izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrsA

7,"In case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume","vH;FkhZ ds fo:) izkIr tkudkjh ,oa nLrkostksa ds vuqlkj uSfrd v/kksiru dk 01 vijk/k gksuk ik;k x;k gSA ,"significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.", 8,"If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.","mDr izdj.k esa vH;FkhZ dks vijk/k ds rF;ksa dh tkudkjh vuqizek.ku QkeZ Hkjrs le; FkhA ftldk mYys[k QkeZ es fd;k x;k gSA 9,"In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.","vH;FkhZ dks 'kkldh; lsok es dHkh 'kkfey ugh fd;k gSA vr% ;g fcUnq ykxw ugh gksrk gSA 10,"For determining suppression or false information attestation/ Verification form has to be specific, not

vague. Only such information which was requied to be","vH;FkhZ dks vuqizek.ku QkeZ es vijk/k ds laca/k es mYys[k djus dh vis{kk dh xbZ Fkh tks mlds }kjk dh xbZ FkhA ,"specific, not vague.

Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.", 11,"Before a person in held guilty of suppression very or suggestion falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.","vH;FkhZ dks vuqizek.ku QkeZ Hkjrs le; vijk/k dk Kku Fkk ftldk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA lanHkZ& fo'ks""k 'kk[kk iqfyl eq[;ky; Hkksiky e0iz0 dk i= dz0& fo'kk@21@Ogj@2016&17 ¼,Q&146@17½ fnukad 24-06-17" mijksDr fo""k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd vkj{kd HkrhZ izfdz;k 2016 ds vUrxZr vkidk p;u vkj0 VsªM ¼Lohij½ ds in ij bl bdkbZ esa gqvk FkkA fu;qfDr" iwoZ vkidk pfj= lR;kiu iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk eqjSuk e0iz0 ls djk;k x;kA iqfyl v/kh{kd eqjSuk dh fjiksVZ esa vkids fo:) ekuuh; U;k;ky; eqjSuk esa vkijkf/kd izdj.k dza0 150@12 /kkjk 457]336]294]506&ch 34 Hkknfo dk mYys[k gksus ds dkj.k izdj.k dh leh{kk gsrq iqfyl eq[;ky; Hkksiky esa ,d Nkuchu desVh" dk xBu fd;k x;kA mDr Nkuchu desVh dh vksj ls izdj.k dh leh{kk mijkUr lanfHkZr i= ds ek/;e ls fjiksVZ bl dk;kZy; esa izkIr gqbZ gS ftlesa vkidks iqfyl lsok ds v;ksX; ik;k x;k gSA vr% mDr laca/k esa vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkidks pfj= lR;kiu esa v;ksX; ik;s tkus ds dkj.k bl dk;kZy; }kjk fu;qfDr ugha nh tk ldrh gSA lsukuh,, 13oha okfguh folcy Xokfy;j,, Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that having been exonerated of the charges levelled against the petitioner, there was no stigma against the" petitioner as would have created any impediment in his appointment to the post of Constable(Sweeper). It is urged that the Screening Committee grossly erred in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner is not a fit person to be taken in the services of disciplined force. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in Gorelal Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors: W.P.No.6151/2013(s) decided on 19.08.2016 and in State of M.P. vs. Gore Lal Sharma: W.A. No.102/2017 decided on 13/04/2017, in Tahseeldar Singh Vs. State of M.P. W.P.No.7412/2014 decided on 14/12/2015, in Kailash" Chandra Sirvi vs. Home Department & Ors: W.P.No.2778/2015 decided on 24/08/2016, in Dinesh Singh Parihar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.:"

W.P.No.896/2014 decided on 18/06/2014 and in Sandeep Pandey vs. State of M.P. and Ors.W.A. No.367/2015 decided on 17/12/2015. As regard to decision in Sandeep Pandey(supra), it is stated on behalf of the respondent that the operation of said order has been stayed by the Supreme Court on" 07/11/2016 in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.20522/2016.,, The respondents, on their turn, have opposed the relief sought. It is urged that it is the sole discretion of the employer to engage or not to engage for" reasons that an incumbent will not be suitable for the service for which he is considered. It is contended that in the case at hand the Screening Committee after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the charges levelled against him, gave the opinion that he will" not be a suitable person for service in a disciplined force. It is urged that the discretion having been judiciously exercised after affording an opportunity of hearing, the same cannot be faulted with.",, Considered the rival submissions.,, The issue as present one came up for consideration before Full Bench of our High Court in Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Writ Petition No.5865/2016 Order dated 12.01.2018),",, wherein following questions were dwelt upon:-,, “1. Whether in all cases, where an FIR lodged against a person for minor offences has been quashed on the basis of a compromise arrived at" between the parties or a person has been acquitted on account of a compromise between the parties, the character of the person applying for" appointment thereafter, has to be treated as Good and such a person cannot be held ineligible for appointment under the Rules of 1994 ?"

Whether the High Court in exerciseof its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can step into the shoes of the Appointing Authority" and determine as to whether the person concerned is fit for appointment or whether the High Court on finding that the Authority concerned has wrongly exercised its discretion in holding the candidate to be ineligible should, after quashing the order, remit the matter back to the authority" concerned for reconsideration or for fresh consideration as to the eligibility of the person ?

Whether the High Court whileallowing such a petition in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a further direction to the authority to appoint the person concerned on the post from the date his batchmates were appointed and to grant him back dated seniority and all other benefits or whether the High Court should simply remit the matter back to the authority for taking a decision in this regard ?

Whether the high standards ofadjudging the good character of a candidate for appointment as a Judicial Officer, which has been adopted and" followed by the State under the Rules of 1994 till the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra) were and are right and proper or whether in view of the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra), the same should be considered to be relaxed to the extent that in all cases the character of a" person should be treated to be good where he has been acquitted for minor offences on the basis of a compromise?

Whether the decision in the case ofArvind Gurjar (supra) lays down the correct law ?

Any other question that may arisefor adjudication or decision in the dispute involved in the present petition and which the Larger Bench thinks appropriate to decide ?”,, Dwelling on Questions No.1, 4 and 5, it is held:",, “32. Therefore, in respect of the Questions No.1, 4 and 5 we hold that decision of criminal Court on the basis of compromise or an acquittal cannot" be treated that the candidate possesses good character, which may make him eligible, as the criminal proceedings are with the view to find culpability" of commission of offence whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view of his suitability to the post. The test for each of them is based upon different parameters and therefore, acquittal in a criminal case is not a certificate of good conduct to a candidate. The competent Authority has to" take a decision in respect of the suitability of candidate to discharge the functions of a civil post and that mere acquittal in a criminal case would not be sufficient to infer that the candidate possesses good character. In this view of the matter, we find that the judgment in Arvind Gurjar's case (supra)" holding that it cannot be held that candidate does not have a good character, is not the correct enunciation of law. Consequently, the judgment in" Arvind Gurjar's case (supra) is overruled.,, In regard to questions No.2 and 3, it is held:-",, “40. In view of the law laid down in above said judgments, there is no doubt that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the" Constitution of India, this Court only examines the decision-making process and does not substitute itself as a Court of appeal over the reasons" recorded by the State Government. We find that the decision of the State Government holding that the petitioner is not suitable, is just, fair and" reasonable keeping in view the nature of the post and the duties to be discharged.

Even if the High Court finds that the decision of the State Government is suffering from some illegality, the jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ" petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to remit the matter to the Authority for reconsideration rather than to substitute the decision of the competent Authority with that of its own. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as (1994) 4 SCC 448 ( State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar

Bali) was examining a question: as to whether there could be a direction to appoint a candidate, who sought appointment on compassionate ground."

The Supreme Court held as under:-,,

With regard to appointment on compassionate ground we have set out the law in Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar"

(1994) 2 SCC 718. The same principle will clearly apply here. What the High Court failed to note is the post of an Inspector is a promotional post. The issuing a direction to appoint the respondent within three months when direct recruitment is not available, is unsupportable. The High Court could have" merely directed consideration of the claim of the respondent in accordance with the rules. It cannot direct appointment. Such a direction does not fall within the scope of mandamus. Judicial review, it has been repeatedly emphasised, is directed against the decisionmaking process and not against the" decision itself; and it is no part of the court's duty to exercise the power of the authorities itself. There is widespread misconception on the scope of interference in judicial review. The exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction constitutionally conferred on the Apex Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution can be of no guidance on the scope of Article 226.”,,

The impugned order when is tested on the anvil of the law laid down by the Full Bench, no interference is warranted."