Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 161

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
Gugulothu Nagu - PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, Rep By its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana and 3 others. - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION No.2106 of 2021
Decided On : 25-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms.K.Hemalatha.
For the Respondent: Mr.M.V.Rama Rao

Point of Law: Honourable/clean acquittal of by the Sessions Court is sufficient to vitiate the stigma about his involvement in the criminal case involving moral turpitude.

Headnote:
Service Matter - Indian Penal code, 1860 - Sections 420, 468 and 471 - Offence of ‘moral turpitude’ - Petitioner applied for post of Police Constable and selected provisionally - It was found that a criminal case was pending trial in under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC - Petitioner stated that he had disclosed about pendency of said crime in his application at relevant column and did not suppress any information – Respondent submits services of a person seeking Uniform Service comes under different category from other services - High moral conduct is required for Police Service - It is not proper to appoint persons of criminal record in public interest - Petitioner though acquitted is involved in a case of moral turpitude and is not suitable to be appointed as Police Constable.
Finding of the Court :
Though it is mentioned by trial Court that accused are entitled for benefit of doubt, it is clear that it is not a case of acquittal on any technical grounds or only because some of witnesses have turned hostile - Trial Court has categorically held that prosecution has not properly collected evidence or adduced any evidence to show that bonafide certificate and ID Card are seized from possession of accused or collected from possession of PW1 - Since seizure of documents from possession of accused was not proved prosecution failed to adduce evidence to attract essential ingredients of Sections 420, 468 IPC - Moral turpitude is defined as “An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” - Involvement of petitioner in an offence of ‘moral turpitude’ would arise for consideration if there is a conviction recorded against him - But once there is an acquittal of accused and more so acquittal is held to be on merits and not on technical grounds, issue of ‘moral turpitude’ becomes redundant.
Result: Writ petition allowed.

ORDER:

The petitioner applied for the post of Police Constable under ST category in 13th Battalion, TSSP (IR) in the police department, pursuant to notification dated 31.12.2015. The petitioner qualified in the preliminary written examination in April 2016 and later, he appeared in the main examination in the month of October 2016. After qualifying in the main examination, the petitioner was subjected to physical efficiency test by the respondent No.3. The petitioner qualified in the physical efficiency test and was selected provisionally.

2. While so, a show cause notice dated 06.04.2017 was issued against the petitioner alleging that during verification of the antecedents, it was found that a criminal case was pending trial in Cr.No.250 of 2012 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC on the file of the Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad. It is stated by the petitioner that the in-charge of the Regional Enforcement Squad of APSRTC gave a false complaint against the petitioner and another person on 08.08.2012 alleging that a complaint was received from the verification in-charge of the bus stop centre at Dilsukhnagar stating that bogus application for student concession bus pass was given by him and another person by submitting forged signatures of the Principal of Nova Engineering College in order to get concessional bus pass. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.802 of 2012 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P16 besides M.Os.1 and 2. Having considered the evidence on record, the petitioner was acquitted holding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not disclose or establish the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC and further the documents do not disclose that they were forged and the documents seized from the petitioner are not proved and thereby the prosecution failed to prove their case.

3. Petitioner submitted reply to the show cause vide explanation dated 17.04.2017 stating that he had disclosed about the pendency of the said crime in his application at relevant column No.1 and did not suppress any information. It is contended that without considering the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the said case, the respondents have issued proceedings dated 03.07.2017 canceling his provisional selection on the ground that the petitioner was involved in criminal case. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed WP.No.25473 of 2017, which was disposed of by order dated 01.08.2017 directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 23.06.2017. Pursuant to the said order, the impugned memo dated 02.11.2017 was issued rejecting the case of the petitioner for the following reasons:

“It is seen from the judgment that the prosecution witnesses, PW.3 to PW-5 have not supported the case of the prosecution and the court treated them hostile. The court observed that the prosecution would have called the Principal, who has issued Ex.P-16 whereas the witness (Principal) appeared was not the principal during the year 2012. Finally, the court acquittal the accused i.e. Sri. G. Nagu giving being of doubt. His acquittal is not clean.

The apex court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & another Vs Mehar Singh held as follows:

“The Police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude.

He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category”

As per Rule 3G(vi) of A.P. Police (SCR) Rules 1999 issued in G.O.Ms.No.315 Home (Police) Dept., Dt.13-10-1999 r/w G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal.III) Department, Dt.01-05-2006, a person involved in an offence involving moral turpitude is