Case Details the State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs Bhupendra Yadav

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

20 September 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 5984 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Hima Kohli, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 438 : 2023 INSC 837

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants have erred in rejecting the candidature of the respondent to the post of Constable, despite the latter having truthfully disclosed in his affidavit the fact that he had faced trial in a criminal case which had resulted in his acquittal. Service Law – Rejection of candidature by the departmental authorities on basis of moral turpitude – Propriety: Held: An employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an omission in the disclosure made by a candidate – While doing so, the employer must act with prudence, keep in mind the nature of the post and the duties required to be discharged – Higher the post, more stringent ought to be the standards to be applied – Even if a truthful disclosure has been made, the employer is well within its right to examine the fitness of a candidate and in a concluded criminal case, keep in mind the nature of the offence and verify whether the acquittal is honourable or benefit has been extended on technical reasons – If the employer arrives at a conclusion that the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the post, he may not be appointed or continued in service – In the instant case, even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal case which was decided by the trial Court, on perusing the facts of the said case, it is clear that it was not a case of clean acquittal – It is evident from the facts narrated that after the charge-sheet was filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the complainant, based on which the offence u/s. 341 IPC was compounded – As for the remaining offences for which the respondent was charged i.e. s.354(D) of the IPC and s.11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial – The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile – In such circumstances, the respondent’s plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits – Mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. [Paras 10, 16, 19] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Headnote

Avatar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016]

7 SCR 445; Daya Shankar Yadav. v. Union of India and Others (2010) 14 SCC 103 : [2010] 13 SCR 1076; Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwaria (2021) 10 SCC 136 – relied on. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432; Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Pradeep Kumar and Others (2018) 1 SCC

797 : [2018] 1 SCR 112; Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Another 2022 SCC Online SC 532; Ashutosh Pawar v. High Court of M.P and Another 2018 SCC Online MP 72; Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012)

8 SCC 748 : [2012] 6 SCR 1047; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 18 SCC 733: [2018] 13 SCR 1133; R.K. Kapur v. Union of Indian and Another AIR 1964 SC 787 : [1964] SCR 431; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591 : [2014]

14 SCR 520 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 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 w

View Subscription Plans →