PRAMOD SINGH KIRARversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

                        [2022] 15 S.C.R. 841                            841


                    PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR                                  A
                                 v
            STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-8935 of 2022)
                       DECEMBER 02, 2022                                B
         [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
       Service Law: Appointment for the post of Police Constable –
Disclosure in the verification form – Appellant while applying for
the post of police constable disclosed in verification form the fact    C
of his being tried for offence under s.498A IPC, for which he was
later acquitted – His candidature was rejected – Appellant filed
writ petition before the High Court – Single Judge of the High Court
set aside the cancellation of candidature with all consequential
benefits – Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal
and set aside order of Single Judge – Hence instant appeal – Held:      D
In the verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the
offence under s.498A of IPC and as such there was no supression
of facts – Appointment should not be denied solely on the ground
that he was tried under s.498A of IPC and that too, for the offence,
alleged to have happened long ago and for which he was even             E
acquitted seven years before he applied for the post of Constable –
On the principle of no work no pay, the appellant held entitled to
all the benefits from the date of actual appointment.
      Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                                        F
      HELD: 1. The offence for which he was tried ultimately
resulted into acquittal had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute
which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court. Under the
circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant
could not have been denied the appointment solely on the
aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section        G
498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened
in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006
may be on settlement (between husband and wife). [Para 6][845-
E-F]
                                                                        H
                                841
842            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A           2. The Division Bench of the High Court has materially
      erred in denying the appointment to the appellant on the post of
      Constable and has materially erred in quashing and setting aside
      the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge. However, at
      the same time, on the principle of no work no pay, the appellant
      shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual
B
      appointment. The respondent(s) are directed to appoint the
      appellant to the post of Constable, as otherwise, he was found to
      be meritorious and eligible for the post of Constable within a
      period of four weeks from today. However, it is observed that he
      shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual
C     appointment only. [Paras 8 and 9][846-B-D]
            Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC
            471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 - relied
            on.
            Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and
D           Anr. v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 – held
            inapplicable.
            Rohit Naresh Agarwal v. Union of India (2013) 204
            DLT 401 (DB) – referred to.

E                            Case Law Reference
      [2016] 7 SCR 445               relied on              Para 2.1
      (2021) 10 SCC 136              held inapplicable      Para 4
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-
      8935 of 2022.
F
             From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2020 and 04.02.2022
      of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Main Seat Jabalpur in WA No.723/
      2018 & RP No. 672/2021.
            S. K. Gangele, Sr. Adv., Ms. Priya Sharma, Prathvi Raj Chauhan,
G     Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Ms. Ankita Chaudhry, Dy. AG, Ankit Mishra, Sunny Choudhry,
      Shreyas Balaji, Advs. for the Respondents.


H
PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR v STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &                                843
                      ORS.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
      M. R. SHAH, J.
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment(s)
and order(s) dated 10.02.2020 and 04.02.2022 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal
No. 723/2018 and Review Petition No. 672/2021 respectively, by which,         B
the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal
preferred by the State and has quashed and set aside the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.
18388/2014 and setting aside the order cancelling the candidature of the
appellant herein as Police Constable, the original writ petitioner has        C
preferred the present appeals.
       2. Appellant herein applied for the post of Police Constable. In
the verification form he disclosed of his being tried for an offence under
Section 498A of the IPC. However, as he was involved in the criminal
case earlier, though he was acquitted, his candidature was rejected by        D
order dated 16.12.2014. The appellant filed the writ petition before the
High Court against the cancellation of his selection/candidature and non-
appointment. By judgment and order dated 21.08.2017 the learned Single
Judge allowed Writ Petition No. 18388/2014 and set aside the cancellation
of his candidature and non-appointment and directed the State to appoint
him as a Police Constable with all consequential benefits including 50%       E
back wages from the date on which other batchmates came to be
appointed on the post of Constable.
       2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the State preferred writ appeal before
the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order and relying upon           F
some observations made by this Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India & Ors.; (2016) 8 SCC 471 and other decisions, the
Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and set
aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge by observing that if
the candidate is found to be involved in a criminal case, even in a case of   G
acquittal and/or even in a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully of a concluded criminal case the employer still has the right to
consider antecedents, it cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
      2.2 The review petition is dismissed by the High Court.
                                                                              H
844             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A           2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment(s) and
      order(s) passed by the High Court, the original writ petitioner has
      preferred the present appeals.
            3. Shri S.K. Gangele, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
      of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
B     circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court has
      materially erred in allowing the appeal and quashing and setting aside
      the well-reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
      by which the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the cancellation
      of candidature and non-appointment of the appellant as Police Constable.
C           3.1 It is submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High
      Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the case against the
      appellant was not for the serious offence but was for the offence under
      Section 498A of IPC which was out of a matrimonial dispute.
             3.2 It is submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High
D     Court has not appreciated and considered the fact that the case for the
      offence under Section 498A of IPC was resulted in acquittal in the year
      2006 in view of the settlement between husband and wife and the
      applications for the post of Constable were invited in the year 2013/
      2014. It is submitted that the appellant could not have been punished for
      whatever has happened before 7-8 years and that too, at that time the
E     appellant was aged about 18 years and pursuing his studies. It is submitted
      that therefore the appellant could not have been denied the appointment
      merely on the ground that he was involved in a case for the offence
      under Section 498A of IPC and that too before 7 years and which resulted
      into acquittal.
F            4. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf of
      the respondent – State while opposing the present appeals has relied
      upon the decision of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) as
      well as on a recent decision of this Court in the case of Rajasthan
      Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya;
G     (2021) 10 SCC 136.
             4.1 It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision, it is observed and
      held by this Court that when a candidate/employee is involved in a criminal
      case it is ultimately for the employer to appoint such a person having
      criminal antecedents.
H
PRAMOD SINGH KIRAR v STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &                                    845
              ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the                 A
respective parties at length.
        6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant applied
for the post of Constable in the year 2013 and as such was found to be
meritorious and was found eligible to be appointed as Constable. In the
verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the offence            B
under Section 498A of IPC earlier. Therefore, as such there was no
suppression on the part of the appellant in not disclosing true and correct
facts. It is also required to be noted that the appellant came to be acquitted
for the offence under Section 498A of IPC vide judgment and order
dated 30.10.2006 i.e., 7 years before he applied for the post of Constable.
From the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Trial Court it appears         C
that there was a matrimonial dispute which ended in settlement and the
original complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and was
declared hostile in view of settlement out of the court and the other
prosecution witness(s) examined in the case did not corroborate the
prosecution story. Thus, it can be seen that the appellant did not face the       D
prosecution for the other offences of IPC. Therefore, for whatever has
happened in the year 2001 and the criminal case for the offence under
Section 498A resulted in acquittal in the year 2006, the appellant should
not be denied the appointment in the year 2013/2014. The offence for
which he was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal had arisen out of the
matrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court.        E
Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the
appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the
aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A
of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year
2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be on                   F
settlement (between husband and wife).
       7. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Anil Kanwariya (supra) relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State is concerned on
facts the said decision shall not be applicable. It was a case where the          G
candidate as such suppressed the antecedents and by suppressing the
material facts obtained appointment by fraud/misrepresentation and
suppression of material fact. In that case the employee was convicted
for the offences under Section 343 and 323 of IPC. Therefore, at the
time of appointment he was found to be convicted. Therefore, his
                                                                                  H
846             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     termination came to be upheld by this Court. In the present case such is
      not the situation. Neither there was any suppression of material fact on
      the part of the appellant nor he was convicted for any offence under the
      IPC. The alleged incident was of the year 2001 which resulted into
      acquittal in the year 2006 and he applied for the post of Constable in the
      year 2013/2014.
B
             8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in denying the
      appointment to the appellant on the post of Constable and has materially
      erred in quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the
      learned Single Judge.
C
            However, at the same time, on the principle of no work no pay,
      the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual
      appointment.
             9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
D     impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Division Bench of the
      High Court is/are quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed
      by the learned Single Judge to the extent setting aside the order of
      cancelling the candidature and non-appointment of the appellant as
      Constable is hereby restored. The respondent(s) are directed to appoint
      the appellant to the post of Constable, as otherwise, he was found to be
E     meritorious and eligible for the post of Constable within a period of four
      weeks from today. However, it is observed that he shall be entitled to all
      the benefits from the date of actual appointment only. Present appeals
      are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

F     Devika Gujral                                          Appeals partly allowed.
      (Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)




G




H