And relegating the matter back to the competent authority for passing a fresh order.
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. (Para 3.1)
That during the course of the trial, the complainant had turned hostile. (Para 3.2)
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. (Para 3.2)
The respondent disclosed information about his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. (Para 3.3)
That he was found to be unfit for being recruited. (Para 3.4)
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition2 (Para 3.5)
Which resulted in passing of the impugned judgment whereby the Division Bench quashed and set aside the order dated 24th August, 20178, passed by the Competent Authority and the order dated 17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter back to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order in the facts of the instant case. (Para 3.6)
We are, therefore, of the opinion that mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case3 would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. (Para 19)
In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. (Para 19)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 275 SC
[2023 INSC 837]
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others Vs. Bhupendra Yadav
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 Arising Out of Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 27301 of 2018-Decided On 20-09-2023.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-STPLWeb-275-SC.pdf
