Sur Singh Solanki vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Ajit Singh, J.—This order shall govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 448/2013, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3402/2012 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4161/2012, Criminal Revision No. 449/2013, Criminal Revision No. 450/2013, Criminal Revision No. 615/2013, Criminal Revision No. 663/2013, Criminal Revision No. 664/2013, Criminal Revision No. 665/2013, Criminal Revision No. 1364/2013, Criminal Revision No. 1405/2013 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4156/2013 because they involve a common issue and were heard together.

It is to be noted that Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4161/2012 and Criminal Revision No. 1364/2013 have been filed by the same accused persons Pratap Singh and others and likewise Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3402/2012, Criminal Revision No. 448/2013 and Criminal Revision No. 449/2013 have been filed by accused Sur Singh Solanki and Bhupendra Singh Markam.

All the petitioners/applicants 14 in number are being prosecuted for offences under sections 120-B, 420, 407, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 vide Special Case No. 19/2010 in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Bhopal. The special case arises out of first information report registered on 29.9.2003 by the non-applicant State Economic Offences Wing vide crime no. 18/2003. The petitioners/applicants have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of special case as well as setting aside of the order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the Special Judge whereby he has framed charges of the offences mentioned above against them.

Briefly stated the facts are these. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Standard Fire Advisory Council, Government of India, New Delhi, for establishing fire stations in important buildings, namely Vidhan Sabha Bhawan, Vindhyachal Bhawan, Satpuda Bhawan and Vallabh Bhawan, all situated in the State Capital Bhopal, the State of Madhya Pradesh constituted a High Powered Committee vide order dated 26.9.1997 for establishing fire stations in all these buildings and for necessary action relating to it. The Committee was headed by the Additional Chief Secretary with the Principal Secretaries and Secretaries of all the relevant departments as its members. On the directions of the Committee, the Home Guards Department shortlisted 20 home guards who were found to be qualified for being appointed as firemen and forwarded their names to the Committee in accordance with the directions issued on 20.10.1997 and 1.11.1997 by its communication dated 3.11.1997. The Additional Secretary, Home (Police) Department in turn by order dated 6.11.1997 accorded approval for posting of the shortlisted 20 home guards. Thereafter, by another order dated 7.11.1997, 20 home guards were posted in the newly established fire stations.

The cases of all the 20 firemen were examined by the concerned authority on the basis of criteria laid down by the Committee in its meetings dated 20.10.1997 and 12.1.1998 which prescribed that the candidates concerned must be proficient in fire-fighting, must possess a driving licence, must be a person who has undergone training in fire-fighting and must possess experience in that respect. Admittedly, vide order dated 1.6.1998 the candidates namely Kusumlal Raghuvanshi, Shyam Kishor Pawar, Roop Narayan Sharma, Sahab Singh, Pratap Singh, Gopal Singh, Rameshwar Prasad, Bishan Chand and Brijendra Singh were temporarily appointed as firemen in the revised scale of Rs. 1350-4590 subject to medical examination and character verification. These candidates but for Kusumlal Raghuvanshi, Shyam Kishor Pawar and Roop Narayan Sharma are accused and petitioners/applicants (except accused Sahab Singh) in the present bunch of cases. The other petitioners/applicants have been made accused on the allegation that they, as public servants, manipulated the appointments of candidates as firemen by favouring them and forging documents, etc.

On 2.5.1998 the Director General, Home Guards, informed the Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, that some of the candidates appointed as firemen vide order dated 1.6.1998 had only six months'' service in the Home Guards Department while other home guards working in the establishment, who had several years'' service and experience in fire-fighting, had been left out while making appointments as firemen and as the appointments of petitioners/applicants were causing severe heart-burn in the establishment, the remedial measures be taken immediately. In view of the said communication the Additional Secretary, Home (General) Department, vide order dated 11.8.1998 directed the Director General of Police to cancel the appointments of the above named candidates. In the result, vide communications dated 1.12.1998 issued by the Additional Secretary, Home (Police) Department, and dated 10.12.1998 issued by the Chief Superintendent and Fire Expert of Madhya Pradesh, the appointments of candidates as firemen were cancelled.

Aggrieved the nine candidates, whose appointments as firemen were cancelled and out of whom six have been made accused, filed Original Application No. 894/1998 before the State Administrative Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") against the State of Madhya Pradesh; The Director General of Police; Additional Director General of Police and the Chief Superintendent and Fire Expert of Madhya Pradesh, by impleading them as respondents. The Tribunal, after hearing the candidates and the Government Advocate by an interim order dated 16.12.1998 directed the parties to maintain status-quo. In the result, all of them were allowed to continue in service. After the abolition of the Tribunal, Original Application No. 894/1998 was transferred for hearing to this High Court and was renumbered as Writ Petition No. 24111/2003. The respondents in the writ petition after notice had also filed their return. A learned Single Judge of this High Court, after hearing the parties at length by a detailed order dated 24.6.2010, allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of cancellation of appointments of firemen out of whom, as stated above, six are accused and also the petitioners/applicants (except accused Sahab Singh) here. The operative part of the order from paras 14 to 17 reads as under:

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the appointment of the petitioners was made after following the procedure prescribed by the State authorities and the Committee and after scrutiny by the concerned authorities in respect of the requisite qualifications laid down by the Committee and is, therefore, not in violation of any statutory rules. As admittedly the State has not framed any rules for making appointments to firemen and as there is no direction or instructions on record that the appointments of firemen were to be made in accordance with the rules governing recruitment and appointment of the constables in the police department, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State to the contrary deserves to be and is hereby rejected.

It is further clear from the letter dated 16.10.1998 written by the Director General of Police to the Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department that the selection and appointment of the petitioners were in fact in accordance with law and, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.8.1998 needed reconsideration has not been considered by the authorities.

In view of the aforesaid facts it is clear that the appointment of the petitioners was and is in accordance with law and the impugned order dated 11.8.1998 directing cancellation thereof without any rhyme or reasons except on the basis of the communication of the Director General, Home Guards, dated 22.5.1998 is misplaced and misconceived especially in view of the fact that the letter of the Director General, Home Guards, dated 22.5.1998 did not specify as to how the selection of the petitioners was contrary to the statutory rules or that more qualified and eligible persons who possess the qualifications prescribed by the Committee has been left out.

In the circumstances, the impugned direction dated 11.9.1998 and the consequent communications dated 1.12.1998 and 10.12.1998 are hereby quashed. The petition filed by the petitioners is accordingly allowed.

A bare reading of the above quoted relevant extract of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 24111/2003 clearly shows that the appointments of candidates as firemen were found to be legal and proper. But in spite of this the State Government, through its Economic Offences Wing, chose to file first charge sheet on 30.12.2010, second charge sheet on 22.3.2012, third charge sheet in the month of August 2012 and the fourth charge sheet on 16.8.2013 against the petitioners/applicants. It is interesting to note that although the prescribed period of limitation to challenge the order dated 24.6.2010 by filing writ appeal is only 60 days, the State Government filed the same on 16.8.2011 i.e. after a period of more than a year and no effort whatsoever has been made to expedite its hearing or to pray for stay of the operation of order dated 24.6.2010. And at the stage of framing of charge before the Special Judge, the petitioners/applicants argued for their discharge on the ground of specific finding of the High Court that appointments have been found to be legal and proper but the same was negatived by the impugned order dated 21.1.2013.

We are aware of the settled legal principle reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in Kishan Singh (D) through LRs. Vs. Gurpal Singh and Others, that the findings of fact recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice versa because standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. The Supreme Court has also observed that there is neither any statutory or any legal principle that findings recorded by the court in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject-matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced therein. In that case the Supreme Court, however, also justified quashing of the first information report on the ground that it was lodged by the complainant after inordinate delay without plausible explanation and meeting waterloo in the civil court with a sole intention of harassing the respondents and enmeshing them in long and arduous criminal proceedings.

In the present case also, the appointments of five petitioners/applicants and four other candidates as firemen were cancelled as far back as in the year 1998 on the ground that they were illegal and they had challenged the orders of cancellation before the Tribunal in the year 1998 itself. As already stated above, the matter was then transferred to the High Court where the respondents therein contested the same and the learned Single Judge after 12 years vide order dated 24.6.2010 held the appointments as legal and proper. And although the first information report was registered by the State Economic Offences Wing in the year 2003, it malafidely filed the charge sheet after seven years on 30.12.2010 of the registration of first information report and after four months from the date of passing of the order dated 24.6.2010 by the learned Single Judge of this High Court. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, having regard to the specific finding given by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 24111/2003 after hearing the State Government that the appointments of candidates as firemen were made in accordance with law after proper scrutiny by a High Powered Committee constituted especially for the purpose, the prosecution of petitioners/applicants on the allegation that appointments were illegal is wholly unjustified and amounts to abuse of process of law. Mere filing of writ appeal against the order dated 24.6.2010 much after the prescribed period of limitation cannot be a ground to allow the prosecution of petitioners/applicants to proceed. The Special Judge also ought to have shown respect to the order of the High Court and discharged the petitioners/applicants of the offences charged. We accordingly quash the proceedings of Special Case No. 19/2010 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Bhopal, and discharge them of the offences charged. In the result, the order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the Special Judge is also set aside. The revisions and miscellaneous criminal cases are allowed but without any order as to costs.