An acquittal based on compromise does not disqualify a candidate from public employment if the prosecution lacks substantial evidence, and the nature of the offence must be considered.

(O R D E R)

(Reserved on : 11/12/2024)

(Pronounced on : 10/01/2025)

The present petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 01.01.2023 (Annexure P/11) and seeking a further direction to the respondents to give joining to the petitioner on the post of Constable (Driver).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the Police Constable Test-2012 conducted by the M.P. Professional Board and he qualified for the post of Constable (Driver). It is the case of the petitioner that he was not given joining on the post despite having qualified the written test as well as Trade Test. Later on it was found that the respondents have not given joining to the petitioner on account of a criminal case registered against Signature Not Verified him at Police Station Bhalumada, Tehsil- Kotma, District Anuppur at Crime No. 163/2009 under Sections 325 , 34 of IPC wherein he had been acquitted on the basis of compromise. The respondents had refused to give joining to the petitioner despite the position that he had truthfully disclosed the said criminal case against the petitioner which had already concluded prior to applying for the post in question. The petitioner then filed W.P. No. 19536/2013 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to decide the representation which was then rejected vide order Annexure P/4 dated 12.03.2014. The petitioner again filed W.P. No. 11516/2014 before this Court and the said petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & others (2016) 8 SCC 471 . After the said order was passed in W.P. No. 11516/2014 on 15.03.2017, the respondents again rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order Annexure P/6 dated 06/07/2017 and again the petitioner filed W.P. No. 1203/2018 which was disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & another, 2023 (12) SCC 317 . The respondents again rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order Annexure P/11 dated 09.01.2023 which is now under challenge in the present petition.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said orders that the petitioner though was applicant and succeeded in competitive examination for being appointed as uniformed member of the Police Force but the post to which he applied was the post of Constable (Driver) not the post of regular police. It is further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner were Section 325 /34 of IPC and as per the order dated 24.07.2018 issued by the Home Department of the State, notifying various offences as offences involving moral turpitude, offence under Section 325 of IPC is not notified as an offence involving moral turpitude. It is further argued that in all the three orders rejecting the representation of the petitioner repeatedly vide Annexure P/4, P/6 and P/11 no finding has been given nor any fact has been cited that what was the injury which had been incurred by the injured person so as to justify prosecution of the petitioner under section 325 of IPC . It is stated that though the earlier circular of the Home Department dated 05.6.2003 did enumerate offence under section 325 IPC as one involving moral turpitude, but subsequently, the State itself has realised that it is not one involving moral turpitude and issued the fresh order dated 24.7.2018. It is argued that what is material is the offence as per Indian Penal Code , and once there was no change in definition of the offe