The employer has the right to consider antecedents and evaluate the suitability of a candidate for appointment, even if the candidate truthfully declares a concluded criminal case.

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.

Taking exception to the order dated 5-2-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8935/2008(S) in this intra-Court appeal preferred under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assail is to the decision of the respondents denying the appointment to the petitioner-appellant on the post of constable, on the ground of verification of antecedents and character of the appellant.

2. The factual expose adumbrated in a nutshell that the petitioner-appellant was a candidate, who submitted his candidature for appointment on the post of constable on being found eligible and successful in the selection process. His name was empanelled for appointment and the order dated 28-5-2007 (Annexure-P/2) was issued asking the petitioner to appear and participate in the further process of submitting the form and other credentials for appointment. It is submitted that the appellant appeared and submitted his declaration and verification form, vide Annexure-P/3 and in column No. 12 he had stated that he was arrested in respect of the offence punishable under sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and was acquitted by the criminal Court.

3. The main grievance of the appellant is that even though he had made declaration in the form in column No. 12 and in spite of the fact that he has been acquitted in the criminal case vide order contained in (Annexure-P/4) dated 7-8-2007 the respondents have cancelled his selection on the ground that his acquittal was on the bedrock of benefit of doubt and he is unfit for seeking appointment in the Police Department. Case of the appellant is that he had not made any suppression of facts and in the criminal case which was instituted against him, he has been acquitted of the alleged charges and the order of acquittal has also been maintained by the appellate Court.

4. Counsel for the State submitted that even though in Column No. 12 of Annexure-P/3 - the declaration form, the appellant had mentioned the fact about his involvement in a criminal case, but the respondents have examined the case of the petitioner-appellant in the light of the Circular dated 5-6-2003 (Annexure- R/1) issued by the Department of Home, Govt., of M.P., Bhopal and it was found that as the appellant was prosecuted for the offence involving moral turpitude under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, he was declared unfit for employment in the Police Department. It is further submitted that in the Circular (Annexure-R/1) in clause 6(ii) in the schedule list of offences, which can be considered as the offences falling under the category of moral turpitude, disentitling for appointment in service. It is contended that even after acquittal in the criminal case, the competent authority has the right to evaluate the case of a candidate in the light of the Circular (Annexure-R/1) and determine the suitability of the candidate for appointment in the Police Department.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, 2016 (4) M.P.LJ. (S.C.) 332 : (2016) 8 SCC 471 and contended that since there is no concealment of the criminal case in the verification form submitted by the appellant, therefore, he could not have been denied the appointment by the respondents. He strenuously urged that the offence which was registered against the appellant does not involve moral turpitude.

6. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is apposite to refer the case of Arvind Gurjar v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 5887/2016, decided on 27-10-2016 wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, taking into consideration the facts of the case, held that the decision of the State denying appointment of the petitioner on the police verification despite his acquittal based on compromise in a case of trivial nature was not proper and directed the State