AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Sharma
The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 3.8.11 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the Ujjain Development Authority (in short "UDA") cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued on 19/21.1.11 inviting applications for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) for Scheduled Caste reserved category under the special recruitment drive and the petitioner submitted his application in response to the aforesaid advertisement. A written examination was held on 7.4.11 and finally the petitioner was selected for the post in question. An appointment order was issued on 4.6.11, appointing the petitioner as a Sub-Engineer. The petitioner has further stated that some incident took place on 31.5.11 for an offence u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code and a FIR was lodged on 1.6.11. The petitioner was arrested on 15.6.11, meaning thereby after his appointment and was released on bail on 8th July 2011. The petitioner''s contention is that a mobile was purchased by him from his friend and it was allegedly a mobile involved in the incident which took place on 31.5.11 and he was not aware of the fact that it is a stolen mobile. The petitioner has further stated that later on he was acquitted in the criminal case on 29.3.12. The petitioner''s grievance is that though he was appointed on a regular basis against a sanctioned post, a resolution was passed on 2.8.11 to discontinue the petitioner from services and finally on 3.8.11 while the criminal case was going on, the petitioner''s appointment order itself has been cancelled by the respondent No. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that for purchasing a stolen mobile he has lost his job and the action of the respondents is bad in law in light of the petitioner''s acquittal vide judgment dated 29.3.12.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by this court in the case of Vinod Jayant Vs. Union of India and Others, and has prayed for quashing of the impugned order.
Learned Sr. Counsel appearing in the matter on behalf of respondent No. 2 has drawn the attention of this court towards the appointment order and his contention is that in the appointment order itself it was mentioned that the same is subject to police verification and in the present case as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, the authorities have rightly passed the resolution dated 2.8.11 and have also rightly passed the impugned order dated 3.8.11 cancelling the appointment. Learned Sr. Counsel has argued before this court that the criminal case was very much in existence at the time the resolution was passed and therefore, keeping in view the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Dhan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Another, , no interference is warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. It has also been argued that the petitioner was on probation for a period of 2 years, therefore, keeping in view the terms and conditions of the appointment order his services have rightly been dispensed with. It has also been argued that the criminal case against the petitioner was registered u/s 392 and it was not a case of purchasing a stolen mobile, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. The matter is being disposed of with the consent of the parties at motion stage itself.
In the present case, the petitioner was selected through a process of selection conducted by the UDA. He was appointed on 4.6.11 and the petitioner did submit his joining and started working as a Sub-Engineer. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34,800 on probation for a period of 2 years. It is also an admitted fact that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed under the Madhya Pradesh Development Authority (Officers and Servants) Recruitment Rules, 1988. Annexure-P/9, which is a resolution passed by the UDA reflects that the matter was referred to the legal cell and the Law Officer opined that the petitioner can be placed under suspension as he was under custody for more than 24 hours. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner became a member of service by virtue of his appointment order dated 4.6.11 and at any point of time it was not suppressed by the petitioner that he has been arrested by the police in respect of a criminal case. The petitioner has not concealed any information in the police verification form, on the contrary the police verification form was never furnished to the petitioner by the employer. Learned Sr. Counsel for the UDA has drawn the attention of this court towards judgment delivered in the case of Dhansingh (supra) and the petitioner therein was terminated from service on the ground of concealment of facts in respect of a criminal case, whereas in the present case, there is no concealment at any point of time on the part of the petitioner about the criminal case. On the contrary, he did inform his employer about the criminal case which was registered against him. This court has carefully gone through the judgment of acquittal, which is also on record. The petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court on 29.3.12. This court in the case of Vinod Jayant (supra) relying upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 held as under :-
The basic question is whether the aforesaid reasons assigned by the respondents in passing Annexure-P/1 are justified. Para 8 of Annexure-R/1 dated 8.11.2010, makes it obligatory for a person to furnish complete details of the case. A bare perusal of reproduced portion of the questionnaire shows that petitioner has assigned various details including crime number, offence/sections under which case was registered, name of police station, district and reason for his acquittal. Thus, all details which were required to be furnished, were to be furnished by the petitioner. The only requirement of Annexure-R/1 (para 8) was to furnish the details. The petitioner did so and furnished the relevant details. Para 8 of Annexure-R/1, does not prescribe that document in this regard be also filed. Thus, merely because petitioner has not filed his acquittal order, this cannot be said that petitioner has violated clause-8 of Annexure-R/1. In all fairness, respondents could have asked the petitioner to supply acquittal order and could have verified it before actually permitting the petitioner to join the services pursuant to offer of appointment. Thus, this reason assigned for rejecting the appointment order is arbitrary and capricious in nature. The Apex Court in Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, held that the approach of the authorities should be to condone the minor indiscretions made by young people rather than branding them as criminals for rest of their lives. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :-
We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
In this connection, we may refer to the character ''Jean Valjean'' in Victor Hugo''s novel ''Les Miserables'', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread :3: for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book ''Due Process of Law''. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. Then came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed :-I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell''s third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the judge to show-and to show to all students everywhere-that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land-and I speak both for : England and Wales-they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down.
But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards-of the poets and the singers-more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong-very wrong-in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed" (Vide : Morris Vs. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B. 114)
In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often condoned.
It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case u/s 325/ 34 Penal Code. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.
(Emphasis Supplied)
In the considered opinion of this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), the petitioner did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case u/s 325/ 34, Penal Code, yet the Apex Court directed to adopt a reformative approach, whereas in the present case, the petitioner disclosed everything and there is no suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner. On the cost of repetition, it is clear that as per Annexure-R/1 there was no requirement to file the relevant document. Since, necessary details were given by the petitioner, clause 8 of Annexure-R/1 by no stretch of imagination can be an impediment against the petitioner to get appointment.
Once petitioner is acquitted even on compromise, in the eyes of law, he cannot be said to be a convicted or accused. The allegations against the petitioner were of alleged offence of u/s 323/ 506, Penal Code. Once he is acquitted, it cannot be said that he is unfit for appointment in CISF. No enabling provision is shown by the respondents which debars the petitioner from right of consideration and appointment as Sub-Inspector despite his acquittal by the criminal Court. The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a person or even an accused is innocent unless found guilty.
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered in the case of Vinod Jayant (supra) and also keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police (supra) as there was no concealment at any point of time on the part of the petitioner and he was appointed as a regular employee and he was on probation, his services could not have been put to an end in the manner and method it has been done by the respondents. Not only this, the Rules of 1988 provides that in the matter of disciplinary action punishment, conduct, etc. the rules applicable to the employees of the State Government shall be applicable to the employees of the UDA, meaning thereby M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 are very much applicable to the petitioner. Rule 15 (1) of the Rules of 1988 provides for discontinuing a probationer, in case he has not made sufficient use of his opportunity or has failed to satisfy standard expected of. This court is of the considered opinion that as in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is no suppression at any point of time by the petitioner in respect of the criminal case and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was later on honourably acquitted by the trial court, the impugned action on the part of the respondents is bad in law and the resolution dated 2.8.11 as well as consequential order dated 3.8.11 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits except back wages.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Arguments heard.
Order passed separately.