An acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not guarantee recruitment to police service; suitability must consider moral character and the nature of prior charges.

JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

1.1. The appellants are permitted to place on record the additional documents, as prayed for.

2. More often than not, the quality of law and order in the society and maintenance thereof depends upon the character of the persons serving in the police force. It becomes imperative that the recruitees in the disciplined force should be the persons beyond reproach and men with rectitude.

2.1. The exposition of the above narrative is required to be applied in its four corners while examining the challenge to judgment and order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 297 of 2023, which is impugned in the present appeal preferred by the appellant–the State of Madhya Pradesh.

2.2. Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition of respondent-original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’ as per the present position) by judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 in which the respondent had challenged the rejection of his candidature by the screening committee for appointment to the post of constable (driver) in the police force on the ground that the petitioner had criminal antecedents.

2.3. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment and order of learned Single Judge, consequently set at naught order-cum-decision dated 16.06.2017, whereby the screening committee treated the respondent to be not fit for giving employment as constable. It further directed the competent authority of the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent, for appointment to the post of constable (driver) by treating the acquittal dated 26.09.2014 granted to the respondent to be a clean and honourable acquittal and to pass appropriate order within stipulated time.

2.4. The operative part of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in Paragraph 11 is reproduced herein,

‘(i) Impugned order dated 09.02.2023, passed in WP No 4212/2017 is set aside.

(ii) Impugned order dated 16.6.2017(Annexure-P/1 to the petition), passed by the respondents is quashed for having been passed without application of mind.

(iii) The respondents/competent authority is directed to reconsider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of constable (driver) in Police Force afresh by treating the acquittal dated 26.09.2014 to be clean and honourable and pass an appropriate speaking order in accordance with law.

(iv) The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.’

3. In the writ petition before the High Court, the respondent herein prayed to set aside the order-cum- decision dated 16.07.2017 of the competent authority of the screening committee. The screening committee had undertaken the character verification of the respondent and after examination, treated the respondent to be ineligible for the police service. The respondent had applied for the post of constable (driver) in the process of appointment of the police constables in different categories initiated in the year 2016. He was qualified to stand at serial No. 336 in the unreserved category. Before joining, the respondent submitted an affidavit disclosing the factum of criminal case against him, and enclosed copy of the order of the acquittal.

3.1. In the year 2012, First Information Report bearing Crime No. 33 of 2012 was registered against the respondent and four other accused persons in respect of the offences under Sections 363 , 366, 366-A, 376(2)(f) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Begumganj Police Station, Raisen district. The chargesheet came to be filed against the respondent and the trial took place. The trial court by judgment and order dated 26.09.2014 acquitted the respondent herein and two other accused persons giving them benefit of doubt.

3.2. In course of the recruitment process, the screening committee of the appellant herein undertook the process of character verification. The respon