- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 270 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI KAVADE CHANDRAPPA S/O K.LAKKAPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS R/AT: M. KORACHARAHATTI MACHOHALLI POST HARAPANAHALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 583 137. … PETITIONER (BY SRI K MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT) CO-ORDINATOR FOR POLICE CONSTABLE RECRUITMENT CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANGARE - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, A.G.A.) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS ORDER DATED 19.04.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.11550 OF 2022 (S-KSAT) AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAME AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS, AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER, IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.07.2025, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, PASSED THE FOLLOWING; CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CAV ORDER 1. This review petition is filed for review of the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in W.P. No. 11550/2022 (S-KSAT) and to allow the said writ petition. 2. Facts leading to filing of the present review petition are as under: a. Petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Civil Police Constable, Davanagere District under the SC (Others) category. In the final selection list his name was not included on the ground that he was unfit for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 the post as he was an accused in crime No. 204/2009 of Harapanahalli Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 504, 420 and 354 of IPC. On filing charge sheet, case came to be registered as C.C. No. 150/2011 (old C.C. No. 636/2009) on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli and petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of said criminal case when he made application for selection. Respondent No. 2 has cancelled the selection of the petitioner and issued order to that effect. b. Being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of selection, petitioner had approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `KSAT’) in application No. 2065/2012 and sought quashing of cancellation of selection and direction to the respondents to select and appoint him to the post of Civil Police Constable under SC (Others) category, etc. c. During the pendency of the said application before the KSAT, respondents brought to the notice of the Tribunal that petitioner was involved in one more crime in crime No. 106/2011 of Harapanahalli Police Station for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 offence punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 354 of IPC and it is pending in C.C. No. 732/2011 on the file of JMFC, Harapanahalli. Both cases were registered on the complaint lodged by one Kumari Bhagyamma, resident of petitioner’s village. In crime No. 204/2009 said Kumari Bhagyamma had lodged a complaint against petitioner alleging that though the petitioner had promised to marry her, later he retracted on the promise and when it was questioned by her, on 28.08.2009 petitioner had gone to her flour mill and abused her in filthy language. The petitioner had been convicted by the trial Court and acquitted in the application by judgment dated 06.11.2014. d. The KSAT dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the KSAT before this Court in W.P. No. 21901/2016 (S- KAT). This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection. e. Inspite of direction of this Court to comply the direction within 3 months, the respondents did not take - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 any action. Hence, petitioner filed CCC No. 147/2020 (Civil) before this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. f. After service of contempt notice, respondent No. 2 had filed counter affidavit and produced proceedings dated 22.11.2019 and endorsement dated 13.01.2020. This Court by order dated 22.12.2020 discharged the respondents and observed that it will be open for the complainant/petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for challenging the endorsement in accordance with law. g. In the affidavit filed in C.C.C. No. 147/2022 respondent No. 2 had contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court a committee was formed to consider the case of petitioner and the committee thereafter, considered the case and in the proceedings held that petitioner is not entitled for appointment for multiple reasons, particularly, for the reason that several criminal cases were registered against him and that he was recorded as rowdy sheeter by order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harapahanahalli Sub- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 Division, Davanagere District. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 101459/2021 (GM-Police) before the Dharwad Bench seeking direction to the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner for removing his name from rowdy sheeter. Subsequently, concerned authority considered his representation and rowdy sheet was placed in unmoved record. h. Being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 13.01.2020, petitioner had approached the KSAT in Application No. 1861/2021 seeking quashing of endorsement and sought direction to respondent No. 2 to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Civil Police Constable under SC (others) category, etc. After hearing both sides, the KSAT has dismissed the Application. Petitioner had challenged the said order passed by the KSAT in W.P. No. 11550/2022 (S-KSAT) before this Court and the same came to be dismissed following the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Sing Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2016 SCC (8) 471 and in the case of Union of India - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 and others Vs. Methu Meda reported in 2022 (1) SCC 1. 3. Petitioner has sought review of the said order on the following grounds; I. There was no column in the application form to furnish information regarding conviction of the cases or pendency of any criminal case and this Court has not observed order passed by this Court in earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 21901/2016. II. In the case of Annappa K.B. Vs. State of Karnataka (W.P. No. 23294/2011 disposed on 08.11.2013) this Court has held that Rule 5(7) of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules, 1977’) provides that no person who is or has been convicted of an offence involving moral turptitude shall ordinarily be appointed to the State Civil Services, unless the Government after review of all circumstances considers him suitable for such appointments. Mere involvement of persons in criminal case would not be a ground to deny - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 appointment to them. If the conduct of the person of the offence alleged does not involve moral turpitude or if he is acquitted of an offence, his case should be considered for appointment. This judgment has not at all been considered by this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for respondents. 5. Petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 21901/2016. Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 14.08.2019 allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the selection of petitioner. In the said order the Division Bench has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and has observed thus: “8. A larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), which was cited by the learned Additional Government Advocate, after noticing various decisions, summarized its conclusion at paragraph No.38. It is necessary to observe that at paragraph No.32, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 Their Lordships have noticed that an applicant is duty bound to furnish information, if the application form requires certain information. The respondents have not placed any material on record to substantiate their contention that the application form called upon the applicant to furnish information regarding conviction in criminal cases or pendency of any criminal case. Further, at 38.4.1, it is held that in a case trivial in nature, in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of facts of false information by condoning the lapse. At 38.10, it was held that for determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information is not asked for but is relevant, comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in the objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 9. In the background of the factual matrix, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents could not have rejected the candidature of the petitioner. There is no material on record to show that the application form sought for any such information. Moreover, the petitioner herein has been acquitted by the Appellate Court. The offence alleged against the petitioner is not of a very serious nature involving moral turpitude.” 6. This Court in the order under review has dismissed it on the ground that petitioner had suppressed information or given false information and it is passed on the basis of fitness of petitioner which has been considered by the Committee in its proceedings dated 22.11.2019. Said committee has held proceedings after order passed in W.P. No.21901/2016. The committee gave its report dated 22.11.2019 that the petitioner is not fit to be appointed as Police Constable as he is having criminal antecedent. The Committee has considered the criminal cases registered against the petitioner and Rule 10 of the Rules, 1977. On the basis of the said report of the Committee, endorsement dated 13.01.2020 came to be issued. Said - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 endorsement had been challenged by the petitioner before the KSAT which came to be dismissed and the said order of the KSAT is challenged in the writ petition before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner, referring to Rule 5(7) of the Rules, 1977, has contended that the petitioner is acquitted by the appellate Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging order of conviction passed by the trial Court. He would contend that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not an offence involving moral turpitude. 8. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1977 reads thus: “(7) No person who is or has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or who is or has been temporarily debarred or disqualified by the Union or any State Public Service Commission from appearing for examinations or selections conducted by it shall ordinarily be appointed to the State Civil Services unless, the Government after a review of all the circumstances consider him suitable for such appointment.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 Meticulous reading of Rule 5(7) of the Rules, 1977 indicates that ultimately suitability of the candidate requires to be considered for his appointment. 9. Petitioner sought his appointment in the Police Department as a Police Constable. It is not in dispute that petitioner is having criminal antecedents and he is involved in more than one case. This Court while passing order under review referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Methu Meda (supra) wherein decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has been referred to. In the case of Methu Meda (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to its decision in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another, Vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 and extracted paragraphs of that case in paragraph Nos. 23, 34 and 35 and they read as under: “23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such person's involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this Court as its object appears to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force. 34. The respondents are trying to draw mileage from the fact that in their application and/or attestation form they have disclosed their involvement in a criminal case. We do not see how this fact improves their case. Disclosure of these facts in the application/attestation form is an essential requirement. An aspirant is expected to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 state these facts honestly. Honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of the police force. The respondents should not, therefore, expect to score any brownie points because of this disclosure. Besides, this has no relevance to the point in issue. It bears repetition to state that while deciding whether a person against whom a criminal case was registered and who was later on acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature of the offence, the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt because the witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future. This decision, in our opinion, can only be taken by the Screening Committee created for that purpose by the Delhi Police. If the Screening Committee's decision is not mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations, then, it cannot be questioned. 35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the 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 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 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 misusing power are in 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 trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Methu Meda (supra) by referring to the decision in the case of - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 Avtar Singh (supra) and in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) has observed as under: “20. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear the respondent who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. A person having a criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category. The employer is having right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is completely exonerated 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 and the decision of the Committee would be final unless mala fide. In Pradeep Kumar, this Court has taken the same view, as reiterated in Mehar Singh. The same view has again been reiterated by this Court in Raj Kumar. 21. As discussed hereinabove, the law is well- settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the orders impugned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Methu Meda v. Union of India and the Division Bench in Union of India v. Methu Meda are not sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove.” 11. Petitioner who wished to join Police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedent would not be fit in this category. Even though petitioner is acquitted, the employer is having right to consider his candidature regarding his fitness to the post of Police Constable. The Committee in its proceedings dated 22.11.2019 has considered all aspects of criminal antecedents, post to which the petitioner had been selected, i.e., Police Department as Police Constable and considering Rule 10 of Rules, 1977 has given a report that - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31015-DB RP No. 270 of 2023 petitioner is not fit to be appointed as Police Constable. This Court in the order under review, considering all those aspects, dismissed the writ petition. There are no grounds made out to review the order. Hence, review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS