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 companystable in the police service of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Signature Not Verified On 05.06.2014 Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date 2019.03.28 he 160044 IST Reason was called for verification of the marks sheet, caste certificate.
Hence, the appeal by special leave is filed before this Court.
He was called for police verification by the Screening Committee on 25.02.2015.
Reasons were companymunicated.
As against the denial of the appointment respondent Bunty filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore.
He was found unfit for being appointed as Police Constable in a disciplined force.
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.
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.
Physical endurance test was held on 06.05.2013.
He was medically examined and selected on 09.05.2014.
It is number in dispute that respondent Bunty was involved in a case involving moral turpitude for the companymission of an offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC.
He appeared and cleared the Police Constable Recruitment Test II .
The respondent applied for the post of a Constable in the year 2013.
Leave granted.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court companysidered 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 number clean.
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 number proved beyond reasonable doubt, appointment order has to be issued as a matter of companyrse.
