Service Law – Appointment – Acquittal from criminal case – Nature of – Effect of – Respondent applied for the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force – Provisionally selected – Found not eligible for appointment on account of a criminal case of kidnapping for ransom against him, though acquitted – Held: 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, like in the present case, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force – Mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient – Employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate – Impugned orders passed by Single Judge as well as Division Bench set aside.
Words & Expressions – ‘honourable acquittal’– Meaning of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The expressions ‘honourable acquittal’, ‘acquitted of blame’ and ‘fully acquitted’ are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code. It has been developed by judicial pronouncements. if the acquittal is directed by the court on consideration of facts and material evidence on record with the finding of false implication or the finding that the guilt had not been proved, accepting the explanation of accused as just, it be treated as honourable acquittal. If prosecution could not prove the guilt for other reasons and not ‘honourably’ acquitted by the Court, it be treated other than ‘honourable’, and proceedings may follow. Acquittal giving benefit of doubt would not automatically lead to reinstatement of candidate unless the rules provide so. [Paras 11, 13 and 14][663-C-D-; 664-A-B, D-E] Inspector General of Police & Another vs. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598:[2012] 11 SCR 174; State of Assam & Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari (1972) 7 SLR 44; R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 787 : [1964] SCR 431; Reserve Bank of India vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 586 – relied on.
1.2 If acquittal is not honourable, the candidates are not suitable for government service and are to be avoided. The relevant factors and the nature of offence, extent of his involvement, propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future, are the relevant aspects for consideration by the Screening Committee, which is competent to decide all these issues. In the present case, the charges were framed against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 347/327/323/506(Part-II) and 364A IPC. He was acquitted after trial by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua because the person kidnapped and also his wife have not supported the case of prosecution. As per prosecution, the complainant was beaten by the respondent and the said fact found support from the evidence of doctor. Therefore, it appears that the Committee was of the view that acquittal of the respondent, in the facts of the present case, cannot be termed as ‘honourable acquittal’ and the said acquittal may be treated by giving benefit of doubt. The employer is having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment. Acquittal on technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even in case, truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made by the employee, still the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. [Paras 15, 16 and 18][664-G-H; 665-A-C; 667-C-E] New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685: [2013] 13 SCR 432; Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797: [2018] 1 SCR 112 - relied on.
1.3 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. 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 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 in the orders impugned. The impugned orders passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in writ petition and Division Bench in writ appeal are set-aside. [Paras 21-23][669-F-G; 670-A-C]
Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445; Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar 2021(9) SCALE 713 – relied on.
Commissioner of Police, State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 18 SCC 733 : [2018] 13 SCR 1133; State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Love Kush Meena 2021(4) SCALE 634; Rahul Yadav vs CISF and another: 178 (2011) DLT 263; Panna Mehta vs. State of M.P. (2002) 4 M.P.H.T. 226; Robert Stuart Wauchope vs. Emperor (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168 – 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.