Deepak Asai vs The State of M.P. and others

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 23.07.2015, whereby the respondents opined that the petitioner is not suitable to serve the Police Department.

Criticizing this order, Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner earlier submitted his candidature for the post of Constable. He was appointed by order dated 24.07.2010 (Annexure- P/2). He worked as Constable with utmost honesty and sincerity. Thereafter, by obtaining NOC from the department, he submitted his candidature for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (M). The document showing the same is Annexure-P/3. The Department permitted the petitioner to participate in the said selection process conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board. The said permission dated 21.10.2014 is Annexure-P/4. The attention of this Court is drawn on the merit list dated 14.03.2015 (Annexure-P/5), wherein the petitioner''s name finds place at No.1 of the said list. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police verification form was submitted by the petitioner on 30.01.2015, wherein it is fairly disclosed that the petitioner was subjected to a criminal case from where he was acquitted. By taking this Court to the impugned order dated 23.07.2015, it is submitted that the petitioner was exonerated by the competent Court on 26.04.2010, the date before his entry as Constable w.e.f. 24.07.2010 (Annexure-P/2).

Putting it differently, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when petitioner entered the employment as Constable, before that, he disclosed that he was subjected to a criminal proceeding from where he stood acquitted on Rajinama (Settlement) on 26.04.2010. With open eyes, the respondents appointed the petitioner as Constable and he discharged his duties on the post of Constable for more than five years. Since the petitioner was fit to become Constable, he was appointed as Constable. For the same offence and because of same judgment, which is based on Rajinama the petitioner cannot be said to be unfit or unsuitable for another post in the same department.

Shri Chatarjee, learned P.L. has opposed the relief. He submits that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Pervez Khan (Civil Appeal No.10613/2014), it is clear that high standard of conduct is expected from the members of the disciplined/police force. Since petitioner''s acquittal is based on Rajinama, it cannot be said that the petitioner is fit for employment.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the petitioner was first appointed on the post of Constable in July, 2010. Much before that, he stood acquitted by the criminal Court on 26.04.2010. The employer, despite knowledge of nature of acquittal, found the petitioner as suitable/fit to perform the duties of Constable. Thereafter, the petitioner was given permission to participate in the selection for a higher post. Once, the petitioner was found to be suitable and was appointed as Constable, after five years, it is no more open to the respondents to say that the petitioner is unsuitable for Police Service. The impugned order is passed in a mechanical manner without examining the aforesaid fact that the petitioner was not only found suitable for appointment in police service, he was appointed and is still continuing as Constable.

Thus, in the peculiar facts of the case, the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Resultantly, the said order is set aside. The respondents are directed to proceed further in view of the result of the Selection Committee.

This order passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case shall not be treated as precedent. Petition is allowed. No cost.