Pramod Singh Kirar VS State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (2022)

Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE

• The legal proceedings commenced in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh where the appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 18388/2014 in the year 2014. 
• The appellant, Pramod Singh Kirar had filed the petition against the cancellation of his candidature and appointment to the Madhya Pradesh Police to the post of Constable before the High Court.
• The Appellant had disclosed in his verification form that he had been tried for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
• The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition No. 18388/2014, and the State was directed by the Court to appoint him for the post of the Police Constable.
• Dissatisfied with the judgement of the learned Single Bench of the High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh had filed another Writ No. 723/2018 in which the State requested the Court to refer to the earlier Judgement made by the Supreme Court of India in the case Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.; (2016) 8 SCC 471.
• This time there was a division bench in the High Court which had allowed the said appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh and set aside the previous order passed in Writ No. 18388/2014 by the learned Single Judge.
• Pramod Singh Kirar had filed Review Petition No. 672/2021 which was rejected by the High Court.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Pramod Singh Kirar had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India.
• The Division Bench of the Supreme Court quashed or set aside the order of the division bench of the High Court and had restored the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

ISSUES

• Can a writ petition be preferred for cancellation of appointment?
• Whether the order cancelling the appointment of the appellant is valid?
• Whether the appellant is entitled to any benefit?

ARGUMENT

• Appellant:
  • The High Court had made a mistake when quashing or setting aside the well-reasoned order by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
  • The Honorable Division Bench of the High Court Should have appreciated the fact that the case against the appellant was out of a matrimonial dispute in 2001 for which he was acquitted in the year 2006.
  • The Appellant could not be denied appointment merely on the basis that he had been involved in a case for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC which had ultimately resulted in acquittal 7 years ago.
• Respondent:
  • In the Avtar Singh (supra) case and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya; (2021) 10 SCC 136 case it is held by the Supreme Court that if a person is involved in a criminal case, it is ultimately the employer’s decision whether to appoint such an employee with criminal antecedents or not.

JUDGEMENT

• The Supreme Court of India observed that the appellant had applied for the post of Constable in the year 2013 in which he was found to be meritorious and was eligible for the appointment to the post.
• The appellant in the verification form had truthfully declared by himself that he was involved in a criminal case and was tried for an offence under Section 498A of IPC.
• This shows that there was no suppression in disclosing the true and correct facts by the appellant.
• The Supreme Court had also taken note of the fact that the appellant was acquitted of the offences under Section 498A of IPC in the year 2006, which is 7 years before he applied for the post of Constable.
• The Court said that the appellant did not face any prosecution under any of the Sections of IPC and once had an acquittal in the year 2006. So, the appellant could not have been denied appointment solely on this ground.
• Reference to the Avatar Singh (supra) case and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya; (2021) 10 SCC 136 case was denied as in these cases the employee did not truthfully disclose their past criminal offences for which they were prosecuted and as a result the termination of their appointments was upheld by the Court. This case was different as the appellant did not try to hide anything and was acquitted in 2006.
• The Supreme Court quashed the order of the Division Bench of the High Court saying that the order of the High Court materially erred in denying appointment to the appellant and quashing the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
• Hence, the order of the learned Single Bench of the High Court was restored by the Supreme Court of India. However, the Court dismissed the 50% pay as ordered by the High Court saying that according to no work no pay the employee should only be getting the benefits from his actual day of employment.

CONCLUSION

The appellant was denied appointment by the State of Madhya Pradesh in 2013-14 when the appellant had applied for the post of Constable. The appellant, though having clearly disclosed truthful facts about a criminal case he was tried for under Section 498A of IPC in which he was acquitted 7 years before applying for the post of Constable he was denied the post. Upon appealing to the High court in the year 2014 the learned Single Judge of the High Court had restored his employment sighting reasons that he was not prosecuted for any offence and the state was ordered to provide him 50% of his pay since the date of joining of his other fellow entrymates. The State of Madhya Pradesh dissatisfied with this order had appealed to the High Court in which the division bench in 2018 said that the appointment of the employee stands in the hands of the employer referring to the Avatar Singh (supra) case. Upon the rejection of the review petition the appellant appealed in the Supreme Court where the Court quashed the order of the Division Bench of the High Court saying that the Division Bench had materially erred in setting aside the order of the Single Judge of the High Court and had restored the order of the Single Judge, though not allowing the 50% pay as per the no work no pay rule.

REFERENCES

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/16190/16190_2022_5_1503_40235_Judgement_02-Dec-2022.pdf (The original judgement)

This Article is written by Ayushi Sinha of Lloyd School of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin