Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahadeo s/o Laxman Pund, applied for appointment to the Armed Constabulary of the State Reserve Police Force. He disclosed in his application form that he was charged with offences under sections 147, 149, 324, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents disqualified him solely on the ground that these offences were registered against him. The petitioner challenged this disqualification by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The court examined Rule 18 of the Bombay State Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959, which states that conviction by itself may not be considered a disqualification, but each case shall be considered on its merits with due regard to the nature of the offence and whether it involves moral turpitude. The court noted that there is no rule disqualifying a person merely because an offence is pending trial. The learned AGP could not point to any such rule. The court held that the petitioner ought not to have been treated as disqualified for appointment merely because he disclosed that he is being tried for certain offences. Accordingly, the court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's candidature and directed respondent no. 2 to consider his candidature afresh in accordance with law. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Police Recruitment - Disqualification - Pending Criminal Trial - Bombay State Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959, Rule 18 - The petitioner was disqualified from being considered for appointment in the Armed Constabulary solely because offences under sections 147, 149, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC were registered against him. The court held that Rule 18 only considers conviction as a possible disqualification, and even then, only if the offence involves moral turpitude. Mere pendency of trial does not disqualify a candidate. The court set aside the rejection and directed fresh consideration. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate can be disqualified from appointment to the Armed Constabulary of the State Reserve Police Force merely because criminal offences are pending trial against him, without a conviction.
Final Decision
The court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's candidature and directed respondent no. 2 to consider his candidature afresh for appointment to the Police Constabulary in accordance with law. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Mere pendency of criminal trial does not disqualify a candidate for appointment to Armed Constabulary
- Rule 18 of Bombay State Reserve Police Force Rules
- 1959 requires conviction and moral turpitude for disqualification
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (03) 134
Writ Petition No.912/2010
S.A. Bobde, Smt. Vasanti A. Naik
Shri R.N. Ghuge for petitioner; Shri N.S. Khubalkar, AGP for respondent no.1; Respondent no.2 served
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya Mumbai; The Commandant, Indian Reserve Battalion -2 (I.R.B.) State Reserve Police Force Gat No.15, Birsi Camp Gondia, Dist. Gondia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging disqualification from appointment to Armed Constabulary of State Reserve Police Force on ground of pending criminal charges.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of rejection of his candidature and direction to consider him afresh for appointment.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was disqualified from being considered for appointment in the Armed Constabulary because offences under sections 147, 149, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC were registered against him.
Issues
Whether a candidate can be disqualified from appointment to the Armed Constabulary merely because criminal offences are pending trial against him, without a conviction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he himself disclosed the charges in his application form, and that Rule 18 of the Bombay State Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959 does not disqualify a person merely for being charged; even conviction does not automatically disqualify unless the offence involves moral turpitude.
Respondent (AGP) could not point out any rule disqualifying a person who has been charged with an offence and is undergoing trial.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Rule 18 of the Bombay State Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959, only a conviction may be considered as a disqualification, and that too only if the offence involves moral turpitude. Mere pendency of a criminal trial does not disqualify a candidate from being considered for appointment to the Armed Constabulary.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has been disqualified from being considered for appointment in the Armed Constabulary of the State Reserve Police Force on the ground that the offences under section 147, 149, 149, 324, 504, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code are registered against him.
Rule 18 of the said rules reads as follows: 'Conviction, by itself may not be considered as a disqualification, but each case shall be considered on its merits with due regard to the nature of the ofence for which the person concerned was convicted, the guiding principle being whether the act involves moral turpitude or not.'
Having regard to the scheme of the Bombay State Reserve Force Rules, we are of the view that the petitioner ought not have been treated as disqualified for appointment to the Armed Constabulary because he disclosed that he is being tried for certain offences.
Procedural History
The petitioner applied for appointment to the Armed Constabulary of the State Reserve Police Force. He disclosed in his application that he was charged with certain offences. The respondents disqualified him on that ground. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.912/2010 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The court heard the matter on 9th March 2010 and delivered oral judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 149, 324, 504, 506, 34
- Bombay State Reserve Police Force Rules, 1959: Rule 18
