Satish Kushwaha vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Anand Pathak, J

1 . The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed.

(ii) That, the respondents No.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to pass an appropriate order to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Home Guard within the time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2 . It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier petitioner was working as Home- Guard Sainik in the office of Divisional Commandant, Home Guard Bahodapur, Gwalior. A case was registered against him for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and trial was conducted. Meanwhile, petitioner was removed from job. Vide order dated 17.11.2022 since prosecutrix did not support the story of prosecution and declared hostile, therefore, acquittal has been recorded in favour of petitioner.

Now petitioner is again seeking employment on the strength of his acquittal.

3 . Learned Government Advocate for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that matter involves moral turpitude because the petitioner faced allegation for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

When an employee suffers allegations under moral turpitude then it is no case for consideration by the department. He referred the list of different offences categorized under different category in which offence under Section 376 of IPC consist of moral turpitude and therefore, petitioner cannot be considered for reinstatement or giving fresh appointment on the post of Home-Guard Sainik.

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner referred the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2023 (1) MPLJ 319.

Considering the rival submissions, although case as relied upon by the petition moves in different set of facts because in the said case offence under Section 498-A of IPC was existing whereas in the present case offence under Section 376 of the IPC is existed. It is the domain of respondents to consider the same in accordance with law if advised so.

6 . Therefore, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that if they intend to consider the case of petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 as well as Pramod Singh Kirar (supra) then they are free to do so in accordance with law. Although it is hereby clarified that it would not be obligatory for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner.

Resultantly, this petition stands disposed of in above terms.