Mere acquittal from criminal charges does not automatically qualify a candidate for police service; moral integrity and suitability remain within the employer's discretion.

JUDGEMENT

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. A challenge has been laid in the present appeal to the judgement dated 24th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, dismissing the appeal1 filed by the appellant – State Government against the order dated 17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition2 and relegating the matter back to the competent authority for passing a fresh order.

3. We may first allude to the relevant facts of the case.

3.1 In May, 2015, a criminal case3 was registered against the respondent who was arrayed as an accused in a Special Sessions Case4 in the Court of the First Additional 1 Writ Appeal No. 46 of 2018 2 Writ Petition No. 19621 of 2017 3 Vide Crime No.64/2015, registered at PS Isagarh, District Ashoknagar, under Sections 341 , 354 (D), 323, 34 IPC and under Sections 7 , 8 and 11(d)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012, for short ‘the POCSO Act’.

4 Special Sessions Case No. 16 of 2015 instituted on 21st May, 2015 Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2023.09.20 18:02:00 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar (MP). Charges were framed against the respondent under Sections 341, 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code5 and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act.

The case set up by the prosecution against the respondent was that on 14th February, 2015, he along with the other co-accused had wrongfully restrained the complainant therein (a minor) and tried to outrage her modesty. Despite the complainant spurring the repeated efforts made by the respondent to befriend her, he had persistently stalked her, threw a letter and flowers at her and insisted that she speaks to him.

3.2 Records reveal that during the course of the trial, the complainant had turned hostile. On a perusal of the judgement6 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, MP in the Sessions Case4, it transpires that the parties arrived at a settlement. As a result, not only the complainant but even her friends who had witnessed the incident, went into a denial mode and refused to support the case set up by the prosecution. The trial Court recorded the fact that a compromise was arrived at between the complainant and the respondent (accused therein) and based on the compromise application preferred by the parties, the charges framed against him under Section 341 of the IPC, were compounded. As the other offences for which the respondent was charged, were non-compoundable, the case continued but because the prosecutrix and the witnesses cited by the prosecution turned hostile, the trial Court passed an order, acquitting the respondent of the charges framed under Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act.

5 For short ‘IPC’ 6 Dated 26th October, 2015

3.3 In the very next year, i.e., 2016, the appellant – State Government conducted an entrance examination for filling up vacancies of the post of constables. The respondent participated in the said examination and qualified the same under the OBC category.

Thereafter, a physical test was conducted which was also cleared by the respondent.

Finally, based on his performance, the respondent was selected and posted at Ujjain. Vide letter dated 22nd July, 2017, the appellant No.3 – Superintendent of Police, Ujjain directed the respondent to furnish requisite information in terms of the prescribed form. In the verification form, the respondent disclosed information about his involvement in the aforesaid