1
WA-1176-2017

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WA-1176-2017
(State of M.P. Ors. vs. Satendra Singh)
Gwalior, Dated 23.01.2019

Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government

Advocate for the appellants/State.

Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondent.

There is delay of 300 days in filing the appeal.

Condonation whereof is being sought vide

I.A.No.16393/2017. The application is opposed at by

the respondent. However, taking into consideration

the reasons which find mention in paragraphs 2, 3

4 of the application, we are convinced that the

Appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in not

filing the Appeal within a period of limitation.

Consequently, delay condoned. I.A.No.16939/2017

stands disposed of.

The State and its functionaries take exception to

order dated 02/11/2016 passed in Writ Petition

No.6983/2014; whereby, learned Single Judge finding

fault with the order dated 24/12/2014; whereby, the

candidature of the respondent/petitioner for the post

of Constable in Police was cancelled because of his
2
WA-1176-2017

involvement in the Criminal Cases, vide Crime

No.475/2016 for offences under Sections 341, 323,

294 and 506-B/34 of Indian Penal Code, Crime

No.14/2010 under the Gambling Act. Whereas the

case bearing Crime No.475/2016 was withdrawn

under the State Policy. The offence under Gambling

Act vide Crime No.14/2010 culminated into

punishment of imposition of fine of Rs.100/-. Learned

Single Judge remanded the matter for

reconsideration.

The exception to this order is taken on the

ground that the respondent having been convicted

under Section 13 of Gambling Act which tantamount

to moral turpitude, and was not fit for an employment

in disciplined force. It was within the discretion of the

employer to not to recruit such incumbent. Reliance

is placed on the decision of 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) and the decision by the

Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abhijit

Singh Pawar passed in Civil Appeal No.11356/2018
3
WA-1176-2017

(arising out of SLP(C) NO.17404 of 2016).

In State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs.

Abhijit Singh Pawar(surpa), it is held:

“15. In the present case, as on the date
when the respondent had applied, a
criminal case was pending against him.
Compromise was entered into only after an
affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed.
On the issue of compounding of offences
and the effect of acquittal under Section
320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this
Court in Mehar Singh (supra), specially in
paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes
the issue. Even after the disclosure is made
by a candidate, the employer would be well
within his rights to consider the
antecedents and the suitability of the
candidate. While so considering, the
employer can certainly take into account
the job profile for which the selection is
undertaken, the severity of the charges
levelled against the candidate and whether
the acquittal in question was an honourable
acquittal or was merely on the ground of
benefit of doubt or as a result of
composition.

16. The reliance placed by Mr. Dave,
learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of
this Court in Mohammed Imran (supra) is
not quite correct and said decision cannot
be of any assistance to the respondent. In
para 5 of said decision, this Court had found
that the only allegation against the
appellant therein was that he was travelling
in an auto-rickshaw which was following the
auto-rickshaw in which the prime accused,
who was charged under Section 376 IPC,
was travelling with the prosecutrix in
question and that all the accused were
acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support
4
WA-1176-2017

the allegation. The decision in Mohammed
Imran (supra) thus turned on individual
facts and cannot in any way be said to have
departed from the line of decisions
rendered by this Court in Mehar Singh
(supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and Pradeep
Kumar (supra).

18. Before we part, we must record our
appreciation for the efforts put in by Mr.
Siddharth Dave, learned Amicus Curiae and
the assistance rendered by him.”

Pertinent it is to note that the order passed in

Ashuotosh Pawar(supra) has been affirmed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary

No.33368/2018 which was dismissed on 08/10/2018.

The respondent on his turn supports the decision

in Writ Petition No.6983/2014.

The Committee on Character Verification of

respondent found the following in its meeting dated

15/07/2014:

^*1- vijk/k dza-475@06 /kkjk 294]323]341]506]34 Hkknfo dk
izdj.k iathc} dj pkyku U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k x;k FkkA
vfHk;kstu }kjk tufgr esa izdj.k esa okfil fy;s tkus ij
U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 05-09-2008 dks nks”keqDr fd;k x;k gSA
2- vijk/k dza-14@10 /kkjk 13 tqvk ,DV dk izdj.k iathc}
dj pkyku U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k x;k FkkA U;k;ky; }kjk
fnukad 12-01-10 dks :i;s 100@ ds vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr
fd;k x;kA iathc} vijk/k dh /kkjk 13 tqvk ,DV Hkknfo
uSfrd v/kksiru ds vUrxZr gSA
mijksDr vijk/k esa mYysf[kr 13 tqvk ,DV Hkknfo uSfrd
v/kksiru ds vUrxZr gSA vH;FkhZ ds bl d`R; ls mldh ns’k
ds dkuwu ds izfr vuknj dh Hkkouk mtkxj gksrh gSa] tks
iqfyl tSls laosnu’khy foHkkx ds fy, mi;qDr ugha gSA mDr
n`f”V ls iqfyl egkfujh{kd dk-O;-@lqj{kk e-iz- ds i
5
WA-1176-2017

dza@fo’kk@21@Ogj@201317 ¼,Q299@14½ fnukad 31-07-

14 }kjk buds izdj.k dh leh{kk mijkar Ldzhfuax desVh }kjk
vH;FkhZ Jh lrsUnz flag rksEkj dks iqfyl foHkkx dh lsok ds
fy, v;ksX; ik;k x;kA**

When the impugned order dated 02/11/2016 in

Writ Petition No.6983/2014 is adjudged on the

touchstone of the law laid down in Ashutosh Pawar

(supra) and Abhijit Singh Pawar(surpa) in the context

of the findings arrived at by the Screening Committee

on Character Verification, the decision cannot be

upheld. Consequently, it is set-aside. Petition

preferred by the respondent is dismissed.

Appeal is allowed to the extent above. No costs.

(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
pwn*

PAWAN KUMAR
2019.01.28
10:28:25
+05’30’