Service Law – Recruitment in Police Force – M.P. Police Regulations – Rejection of candidature by screening committee for appointment to the post of constable (driver) in the police force on the ground of criminal antecedents, when justified – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the respondent challenging the rejection of his candidature by the screening committee for appointment to the post of constable (driver) in the police force on the ground that he had criminal antecedents – Single Judge held that the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case was not a clean acquittal, but was founded on the ground of benefit of doubt – Order set aside by Division Bench holding that the acquittal was honourable and directing the competent authority to reconsider the case of the respondent – Interference with: Held: Impugned judgment set aside – Respondent was charged in respect of the offences u/ss.363, 366, 366/120B, 366A, 376(2)(c), IPC which were the offences in the nature of grave moral turpitude – Respondent was found to be involved in the serious offences such as kidnapping and abducting a minor girl and raping her, which was a conduct undoubtedly amounting to moral turpitude – The respondent, though acquitted in the criminal case, was exonerated only on the ground of benefit of doubt – Division Bench of the High Court intruded into the functional realm of the screening committee and trampled upon its discretion which was validly exercised by the Committee to treat the respondent unsuitable to be employed in the police force – The domain of considering the fitness and suitability of a candidate for the purpose of taking him in service belongs to the employer – But for the limited considerations namely arbitrariness, unreasonableness, whimsicalness or mala fide approach, the scope of judicial review on this score is extremely limited – Moreover, the quality of law and order in the society and maintenance thereof depends upon the character of the persons serving in the police force – It becomes imperative that the recruitees in the disciplined force should be the persons beyond reproach and men with rectitude. [Paras 9, 9.1, 10]
Service Law – Suitability of candidate, wisdom of the employer – Scope of judicial review, extremely limited: Held: The domain of considering the fitness and suitability of a candidate for the purpose of taking him in service belongs to the employer – A host of relevant consideration would legitimately find a place in the process of such consideration by the employer to decide whether it is feasible and advisable to offer employment to an aspirant – Where the employer or the screening committee of the employer has acted to discard, exclude or reject the candidature by applying relevant considerations and has not acted arbitrarily or whimsically, the courts have no role to interpose – But for the limited considerations namely arbitrariness, unreasonableness, whimsicalness or mala fide approach, the scope of judicial review on this score is extremely limited – Courts are not expected to override the wisdom of the employer in judging the suitability of a candidate and in considering the relevance of the antecedents of the candidate and would not substitute its own view. [Paras 7.3, 9] Service Law – Antecedents of a candidate – Role in the decisionmaking process by the employer – Scope of discretion: Held: In service law jurisprudence, mere involvement of a person in an offence or in a conduct amounting to moral turpitude without anything else may become relevant consideration to judge his fitness to the post and to assess credentials for allowing such a person into the employment – Every moral turpitude has its own counts and degree to become either abhorrent and unacceptable conduct, and would also amount to commission of offence under the law – In a given case, moral turpitude may not result into a legally proved guilt, and it may go unpunished for variety of reasons – Still however, it remains a conduct against decency, morality and norms practiced in the civil society inviting a serious discount and disability for such person in a given situation and given context – Whether it is a question of recruiting a person into the service or continuing him in service or extending an employee some service benefit, his criminal antecedents, involvement in criminal activity, the conduct amounting to moral turpitude, registration of a criminal case as well as nature of his acquittal in a criminal case are all germane considerations to be applied – The employer who would be acting through a screening committee to sift such cases, has fairly a large realm of freedom to act, though without becoming arbitrary – The area of discretion vested with the screening committee in this regard is wide enough to permit it to exclude a candidate or reject him for the purpose of giving appointment – In a given case where the facts are stark, mere involvement of a person in an alleged offence or in the act of moral turpitude may become sufficient enough to apply it as debilitating factor for such candidate to be offered employment – Antecedents of a candidate play an important role in the decision-making process by the screening committee – This dictum would operate with greater rigour when it comes to the recruitment and appointment to the disciplined force like police. [Paras 6-7.1]
Honourable Acquittal – What is:
Held: An honourable acquittal may be one where court comes to a definitive conclusion at the end of the trial upon full-fledged appreciation of evidence that the accused had not committed an offence for which he was charged – This is in sharp contrast against arriving at a finding that because of some lacuna in the prosecution case or in the leading the evidence or on account of non-availability of credible evidence, the offender is not convicted by giving him the benefit of doubt – In such eventualities, the yardstick known to the criminal jurisprudence is applied namely that the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Distinction between an honourable acquittal and the acquittal other than honourable, discussed – The acquittal founded on benefit of doubt is an acquittal based on technical ground – Giving benefit of doubt and thus not convicting the offender is a technical consideration applied – The acquittal for the respondent was governed by such criteria. [Para 5.2.1-5.2.3]
Service Law – Acquittal in criminal case is not always conclusive of the suitability of a candidate:
Held: Even the departmental enquiry can proceed independent of the acquittal in criminal case and mere exoneration in criminal case would not entitle an employee to be reinstated as a necessary sequitur to the acquittal. [Para 5.7]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.