This Petition Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed

against order dated 16.03.2023 passed by Commandant, 23rd Battalion

SAF, Bhopal in file No.23^rd Battalion/SAF/Estt./P.741-A/2023 by which

candidature of petitioner for the post of Constable has been rejected.

The facts necessary for disposal of present petition in short are

that an advertisement was issued in the year 2017 for recruitment to the

post of Constable in 23^rd Battalion SAF, Bhopal. Petitioner appeared in

said examination and was declared successful and accordingly,

petitioner was allocated to 23^rd Battalion SAF. In Character Verification

Form, petitioner had specifically pointed out criminal cases, which were

registered against him i.e. Criminal Case No.1368/2011 and Criminal

Case No.713/2013 for offence under Sections 294, 452, 323, 325/34,

427, 506 Part-II of IPC, which was pending in the Court of JMFC

Harda. Thereafter, by order dated 29.11.2018, petitioner was declared

disqualified from Police Services. Accordingly, petitioner preferred

W.P. No.2651/2019 before this Court and after considering submissions

made by counsel for the parties, this Court passed an order dated

22.09.2022 thereby directing respondents to decide representation. In

compliance of order passed by this Court, petitioner submitted a detailed

representation. However, by impugned order dated 16.03.2023,

representation has been rejected and as consequence thereof,

candidature of petitioner for the post of Constable in SAF has been

rejected.

3.

It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that Apex Court in the

case of Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

3 W.P. No.20686/2023

decided on 02.12.2022 in Civil Appeal No.8934-8935/2022 has held

that since settlement had taken place between the parties, which resulted

in acquittal of candidate, therefore, he cannot be denied appointment

only on the ground that earlier he was prosecuted for offence under

Section 498-A of IPC. It is further submitted that once petitioner has

been acquitted, therefore, there cannot be any hurdle in appointment of

petitioner specifically when there is a scarcity of government jobs.

Merely because petitioner was prosecuted in two different criminal

cases, same may not be hurdle for denying a government Job.

Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It

is submitted that Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union

of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 has also held that the

employer can consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint

the candidate. It is submitted that for appointment in police force, a

person of an impeccable character and utmost honesty is required. Two

criminal cases were registered against petitioner and both the criminal

cases resulted in acquittal only on the ground that in both criminal cases,

complainant had decided to enter into a compromise. Therefore, it is

clear that acquittal of petitioner was not honourable.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6.

The moot question for consideration is that whether acquittal of

petitioner on the basis of compromise can be said to be an honourable

acquittal or not?

7.

The case in hand is squarely covered by the judgment passed by

the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others Vs.

Love Kush Meena reported in (2021) 8 SCC 774, wherein it has been

held as under:-

“24. Examining the controversy in the present

4 W.P. No.20686/2023

case in the conspectus of the aforesaid legal

position, what is important to note is the fact that

the view of this Court has depended on the nature

of offence charged and the result of the same. The

mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but

rather it would depend on whether it is a clean

acquittal based on total absence of e