Service Law – Judicial Service – Involvement in criminal case – Appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Respondent was found not deserving to be appointed for the said post in view of his antecedents – Held: Post of a judicial officer at any level of the hierarchy involves applying the most exacting standards – In the absence of an honourable acquittal, the alleged involvement of an officer in criminal cases may undermine public faith in the system – In the present case, in two cases, the respondent was charge-sheeted for offences u/s.324, IPC also – Cases ended in acquittal based substantially on a compromise, the witnesses had turned hostile – Respondent’s acquittal was not honourable – Decision taken by the appellant through its committee should not have been interfered with by the High Court – Impugned judgment set aside – Penal Code – ss.34, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 504 – Judicial review.
Service Law – Involvement in criminal case – Principles enunciated in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others reported as [2016] 7 SCR 445 at paragraphs 38.4, 38.4.1, 38.4.2 and 38.4.3 – Held: Aforesaid paragraphs would apply to cases involving suppression/false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal is already recorded before the filing of the application/verification and such fact, later came to the knowledge of the employer – Paragraph 38.5 will be apposite in a case where there is no suppression/false information relating to involvement of a criminal case by a candidate.
Judiciary – Judicial Service – Subordinate Judiciary – Judicial Officers – Nature of post – Suitability of candidates – Discussed – Service Law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. This is not a case which involves any suppression of material by the first respondent as a candidate. What is held in paragraph 38.4.3 in Avtar Singh, is actually meant to apply to cases which involve suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal has already been recorded before the filing of the application/verification and such fact, later came to the knowledge of the employer. It is in such a situation that paragraphs 38.4.1, 38.4.2 and 38.4.3 would apply. In fact, paragraph 38.5 is what would be actually be apposite in a case where there is no suppression or false information relating to involvement of a criminal case by a candidate. It would, therefore, be a case which would involve applying paragraph 38.5 read with paragraph 30. [Paras 18-21][736-A, G-H; 737-A-B, E-F]
Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC
471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 – relied on.
2. The post of a judicial officer at any level of the hierarchy involves applying the most exacting standards. The incumbent of a judicial post discharges one of the most important functions of the State, that is, the resolution of disputes involving the people of the country. Even in the advertisement, there is a reference to the requirement of the candidate being possessed of character. Character cannot be understood as being limited to a mere certifying of the character by the competent authority. The High Court is involved with the appointment of judicial officers and rightly so, under the scheme of the Constitution. Though the order of appointment is issued by the State, the involvement of the High Court in the appointment of judicial officers essentially flows from its position in the constitutional scheme. The High Court is duty bound to recommend the most suitable persons to occupy the post. The post of a Civil Judge or a Magistrate is of the highest importance notwithstanding the fact that in the pyramidical structure of the judiciary, the Civil Judge or the Magistrate is at the lowest rung. All the litigation which is instituted in the country, the highest volume of the same takes place at the lowest level. Not many of the cases finally reach the highest Court. It is through the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Magistrate that the common man has the greatest interface. Most importantly, the perception of the common man about the credentials and background of the judicial officer is vital. In the absence of a honourable acquittal, the alleged involvement of an officer in criminal cases may undermine public faith in the system. [Para 22][737-F-H; 738-A-D]
3.1 In two of the FIRs which were lodged, final reports were filed. The matter progressed further and the investigating authorities filed chargesheets. However, it is true that the first respondent stood acquitted. The acquittal is certainly not on the basis that there was no evidence whatsoever against the first respondent. This Court is unable to describe the acquittal as honourable. The last of the FIRs which was FIR No. 98/2012. The chargesheet apparently sought to make out a case under Sections 323, 341, 324 and Section 34 of the IPC. The allegation against the first respondent was one of the inflicting a gandasa blow on the head of the victim. The first of the case, that is FIR No. 81/99, where also chargesheet was filed against the first respondent related to offences under Sections 341, 323, 148, 149,
504 and 324 IPC. Therein, the allegation was that the first respondent had inflicted a sword blow on the hand of the victim. Section 324 IPC is a non-bailable offence. Thus in two cases, he was chargesheeted for offences under Section 324 IPC also. [Paras 23-25][738-D-H; 739-A]
3.2 The first respondent was apparently nearly 30 years of age when the incident relating to FIR No. 98/12 allegedly took place. It is not inapposite in this context to notice that the advertisement for the post was issued in the very next year viz., in the year 2013. Bearing in mind the age, the nature of the offences in which the first respondent was implicated and the two FIRs, at any rate, in which the matter progressed from the stage of the FIR to the stage of chargesheeet and the manner in which the case ended viz., acquittal based substantially on a compromise and also where the witnesses turned hostile and also the nature of the post for which the first respondent was a candidate, the matter should have been approached differently by the High Court. The decision taken by the appellant through its committee after bearing in mind the decision in Avatar Singh though it has referred only to paragraph 38.1.4, but in the body of which decision, it has borne in mind the principles, which would be apposite, should not have been interfered with by the High Court. In the facts of this case, interference with the decision of the appellant was not warranted. The impugned judgment is set aside. [Paras 27, 30][740-B-C, E-H]
Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar (2021) 9 SCALE 713; Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 : [2011] 3 SCR 964 – relied on.
Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2019) 17 696 : 2018 (10) JT 15; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 18 SCC 733 : [2018] 13 SCR 1133 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.