Service Law: Appointment – On the post of constable – Denied on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case for commission of offence u/ss. 392 and 411 of IPC – Writ petition challenging the denial order – Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition – In writ appeal, Division Bench of High Court held that appointment order should have been issued as the candidate was acquitted in the criminal case giving him benefit of doubt – On appeal, held: If acquittal in criminal case is based on benefit of doubt or any other technical reason, the employer can take into consideration all the relevant facts to take an appropriate decision as to the fitness of incumbent for appointment/continuance in service – In the present case, the criminal case against the respondent/candidate was of serious kind involving moral turpitude – Since the candidate was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, clouds cannot be said to be clear as to his antecedents, and hence appointment could not have followed as a matter of course.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In case acquittal in a criminal case is based on the benefit of doubt or any other technical reason, the employer can take into consideration all relevant facts to take an appropriate decision as to the fitness of an incumbent for appointment/continuance in service. [Para 13] [510-C-D]
2. In the present case, all throughout during selection process, the criminal case was pending consideration and as certain witnesses have turned hostile which is not unusual. The respondent knew very well about the pendency of the case against him and it is not uncommon to see that witnesses turned hostile. In the aforesaid circumstance, it cannot be said to be case of clear acquittal, in criminal case, he was given benefit of doubt not acquitted because the case against him was found to be false. Thus, due to such acquittal appointment could not have followed as a matter of course as observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 8] [508-B-D]
3. Considering the nature of allegation in the case, it was a criminal case of impersonation as a police officer and thereby committing the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC. It was a case of the serious kind, which involved moral turpitude and having not been granted the clean acquittal in the criminal case merely by the grant of benefit of the doubt, clouds cannot be said to be clear as to the antecedents of the respondent. Thus, the perception formed by the Screening Committee that he was unfit to be inducted in the disciplined police force was appropriate. Therefore, decision of Scrutiny Committee could not be said to be such which warranted judicial interference. [Para 9] [508-D-F]
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432; State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Parvez Khan (2015)
2 SCC 591; Union Territory,Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another (2018) 1 SCC 797 : [2018] 1 SCR 112 ; Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR
445 – relied on.
Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377 : [2014] 11 SCR 155 – distinguished.
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.