REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3046/2019   (ARISING FROM SLP(C) NO(S). 4964/2019)

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.                 APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

BUNTY                                              RESPONDENT(S)

       J U D G M E N T

1. Leave granted.

2. The  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh  and  Others  are  in  appeal  as

against the reversal of the judgment and order passed by the Single

Judge dismissing the writ application questioning the decision of

the Screening Committee holding the respondent/Bunty to be unfit

for appointment as a constable in the police service of the State

of Madhya Pradesh.

3. The respondent applied for the post of a Constable in the year

2013.  He appeared and cleared the Police Constable Recruitment

Test (II).  Physical endurance test was held on 06.05.2013.   He

was medically examined and selected on 09.05.2014.  On 05.06.2014

he  was  called  for  verification  of  the  marks  sheet,  caste

1

certificate.   He  was  called  for  police  verification  by  the

Screening Committee on 25.02.2015.  On 11.03.2015, the department,

on the basis of the Report of the Screening Committee, decided to

deny  the  appointment  to  the  respondent/Bunty  for  the  reasons

mentioned therein.

4. It is not in dispute that respondent/Bunty was involved in a

case involving moral turpitude for the commission of an offence

under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC.  He was given benefit of

doubt in the said case and was acquitted vide judgment and order

dated 7.1.2015 and same has attained finality.

5. As against the denial of the appointment respondent/Bunty filed

a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at

Indore.  Learned Single Judge of the High Court considered the

matter in extensive detail and relied upon the decision of this

Court in  Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v.  Mehar

Singh,  (2013)  7  SCC  685,  and  that  the  petitioner  had  appeared

before the Screening Committee and it was found in objectivity by

the Screening Committee that he was involved in a case of moral

turpitude and the acquittal was not clean.  He was found unfit for

being  appointed  as  Police  Constable  in  a  disciplined  force.

Reasons were communicated.  Learned Single Judge also relied upon

the decision in  State of M.P. and Others v.  Dinesh Singh Parihar

and Others, rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in

Writ  Appeal  No.724/2014,  dismissed  the  said  writ  application.

2

However, the Division Bench, by the impugned judgment and order,

has allowed the writ appeal preferred by the respondent/Bunty on

the ground that the judgment of acquittal is based on material on

record, he was acquitted since the offence was not proved beyond

reasonable doubt, appointment order has to be issued as a matter of

course.  Hence, the appeal by special leave is filed before this

Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied

upon the decisions of this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), State of

Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v.  Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591,  Union

Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others v.  Pradeep Kumar

and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 797, to contend that when the Screening

Committee has formed an opinion with objectivity considered the

allegations  and  overall  material  the  decision  is  not  open  to

judicial review until and unless it has acted arbitrarily or its

decision is perverse.  Learned counsel further submitted that mere

acquittal on the ground of benefit of the doubt could not have

enured  in  favour  of  the  appellant  so  as  to  be  entitled  to

appointment, as a matter of course as observed by the Division

Bench of the High Court.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent has relied on a decision of this Court in Avtar Singh v.

Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and Joginder Singh v.

Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh  and  Others,  (2015)  2  SCC  377.

3

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that it

was a case of no evidence and with respect to PW.12 also in the

representation filed before the Screening Committee with respect to

the said witness the reasons were assigned why he deposed against

the respondent.  Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

no case for interference is made out in the judgment and order

passed by the Division Bench.  The respondent could not have been

termed to be unfit by the Screening Committee, in view of the

judgment of acquittal.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the

opinion  that  the  respondent  had  participated  in  the  selection

process in the year 2013, at that time the said criminal case was

pending consideration and he has been acquitted subsequently, vide

judgment and order dated 7.1.2015 all throughout during selection

process the case was pending consideration and as certain witnesses

have turned hostile which is not unusual.  The respondent knew very

well about the pendency of the case against him and it is not

uncommon to see that witnesses turned hostile.  In the aforesaid

circumstance, it cannot be said to be case of clear acquittal, in

criminal case, he was given benefit of doubt not acquitted because

the case against him was found to be false. Thus, due to such

acquittal appointment could not have followed as a matter of course

as observed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

9. Considering the nature of allegation in the case, it was a

4

case of impersonation as a police officer and thereby committing

the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC.  It was a case

of the serious kind, which involved moral turpitude and having not

been granted the clean acquittal in the criminal case merely by the

grant of benefit of the doubt, clouds cannot be said to be clear as

to the antecedents of the respondent.  Thus, the perception formed

by the Screening Committee that he was unfit to be inducted in the

disciplined police force was appropriate.  In the aforesaid factual

matrix, decision of Scrutiny Committee could not be said to be such

which warranted judicial interference.

10. Learned Single Judge of the High Court in the factual matrix

projected,  has  rightly  relied  upon  the  decision  in  Mehar  Singh

(supra), wherein this Court has observed as under:-

“35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to  join  the  police  force  must  be  a  person  of utmost  rectitude.  He  must  have  impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he  is  acquitted  or  discharged  in  the  criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to  be  examined  to  see  whether  he  has  been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses  a  threat  to  the  discipline  of  the  police force.  The  Standing  Order,  therefore,  has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of  the  police  force  is  tarnished.  Instances  of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by

5

misusing power are in the public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would  not  like  to  dilute  the  importance  and efficacy  of  a  mechanism  like  the  Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that  persons  who  are  likely  to  erode  its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must  treat  all  candidates  with  an  even  hand."

11.  That apart, when we consider the decision of the three-Judge

Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh (supra) the Court observed:-

“38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case  involving  moral  turpitude  or  offence  of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider  all  relevant  facts  available  as  to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.”

12. In Pradeep Kumar (supra) this Court has observed:-

“15. From  the  above  details,  we  find  that  the Screening Committee examined each and every case of  the  respondents  and  reasonings  for  their acquittal and taken the decision.  While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the  prosecution  are  all  the  aspects  to  be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post.  As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee  examined  each  and  every  case  and reasonings  for  their  acquittal  and  took  the decision that the respondents are not suitable for

6

the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police.  The procedure followed is as per Guideline 2(A)(b) an object of such screening is to ensure that only persons  with  impeccable  character  enter  police force.  While so, the court cannot substitute its views  for  the  decision  of  the  Screening Committee."

13. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions makes it clear

that  in  case  of  acquittal  in  a  criminal  case  is  based  on  the

benefit of the doubt or any other technical reason.  The employer

can  take  into  consideration  all  relevant  facts  to  take  an

appropriate  decision  as  to  the  fitness  of  an  incumbent  for

appointment/continuance  in  service.   The  decision  taken  by  the

Screening Committee in the instant case could not have been faulted

by the Division Bench.

14.  Coming  to  the  decision  relied  upon  by  the  learned  counsel

appearing for the respondent in Joginder Singh (supra) we are of

the opinion that it was not the case of the decision taken by the

Screening Committee on due consideration of the material on record

of  the  case.   Thus,  the  decision  is  distinguishable.   In  the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to

hold that the decision of the Screening Committee was appropriate.

15. Thus, the judgment and order of the Division Bench cannot be

allowed to be sustained, the same is hereby set aside and the

judgment and order passed by the Single Judge are restored.  The

appeal  is,  accordingly,  allowed.   No  orders  as  to  costs.

7

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

...........................J. [ARUN MISHRA]

...........................J. [NAVIN SINHA]

NEW DELHI; MARCH 14, 2019.

8