Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, JJ.
Mukesh Kumar Verma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18718 of 2018
Decided on : 03-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mrs. Namrata Agrawal, Government Advocate Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate
Acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily prove good conduct, especially for the appointment of a Judicial Officer, which requires utmost rectitude, honesty, and integrity.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Appointment of Judicial Officer - Criminal Case Nos. 423/2008 and 422/2008 - Section 379 of IPC - (1993) 4 SCC 288, (1987) 3 SCC 1 - Expectations from a Judicial Officer - Rectitude, honesty, and integrity - Appointment suitability - Parity in illegality - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Principle of one illegality cannot be the basis for committing another - Two wrongs do not make one right
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Law Clerk, applied for the post of Civil Judge, Class-II, but was struck off from the merit list due to two criminal cases against him, for which he was acquitted. The High Court found no merit in the writ petition due to concealment of one of the cases during the Law Clerk appointment process.
Finding of the Court:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily prove good conduct, especially for the appointment of a Judicial Officer, which requires utmost rectitude, honesty, and integrity.
Issues: The issues revolved around the suitability of the petitioner for appointment as a Judicial Officer, the relevance of acquittal in a criminal case, and the principle of parity in illegality.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the high standard of conduct expected from a Judicial Officer, the principle that one illegality cannot be the basis for committing another, and the concept that two wrongs do not make one right.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the Court.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 15.6.2018 (Annexure P-1) whereby name of the petitioner was struck off from the merit list of the selected candidates for the post of Civil Judge, Class-II, for the reason that he was not found suitable for appointment.
2. The petitioner was appointed in this High Court as a Law Clerk on 17.8.2016 (Annexure P-2) on contract basis. While working as a Law Clerk, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Civil Judge, Class-II in response to an advertisement published on 6.10.2016 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner in the application form disclosed two criminal cases registered against him such as Criminal Case Nos. 423/2008 and 422/2008 but he stands acquitted. In Criminal Case No.423/2008 he was acquitted on 25.9.2009 for an offence under Section 379 of IPC whereas, in Criminal Case No.422/2008 he was exonerated on 5.4.2010.
3. The question: as to whether acquittal in a criminal case is proof of good conduct has been examined by a Full Bench of this Court in Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of M.P. & Another [2018 (2) MPLJ 417] wherein after review of the cases including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Pradeep Kumar and another [(2018) 1 SCC 797], it has been held as under:-
“25. The present is not a case of concealment of facts but in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 wherein appointment to the post of Constable has been held to be a post requiring utmost rectitude and only a person of impeccable character and integrity is required to be appointed, such test will increase manifold in respect of a Judicial Officer, who is called upon to discharge the sovereign functions in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as (1993) 4 SCC 288, All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others observed as under:-
“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the judgment under review while dealing with the same contentions raised there. We cannot however, help observing that the failure to realize the distinction between the judicial service and the other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review petitioners to the directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not service in the sense of 'employment'. The Judges are not: employees. As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State…............. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of the other services. The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on par with the members of the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally.
8. This distinction between the Judges and the members of the other services has to be constantly kept in mind for yet another important reason. Judicial independence cannot be secured by making mere solemn proclamations about it. It has to be secured both in substance and in practice. It is trite to say that those who are in want cannot be free. Self-reliance is the foundation of independence. The society has a stake in ensuring the independence of the judiciary, and no price is too heavy to secure it. To keep the judges in want of the essential accoutrements and thus to impede them in the proper discharge of their duties, is to impair and whittle away justice itself.”
26. In a judgment reported as (1987) 3 SCC 1, Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad and others while examining the conduct of use of unfair means by a Judicial Officer in the LL.M. examination, it was held that Judicial Officers have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely unworthy of the office th
