Service law:
Appointment – Disciplined force – Post of constable – Whether the candidature of respondents who had disclosed their involvement in the criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled by the Screening Committee on the ground that they are not suitable for the post – Held: Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle candidate for appointment – It is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post – While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, the nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turning hostile or flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post – The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide – Object of screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force – In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide – Therefore, decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents were not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable did not call for interference – Administrative law. Appointment – Disciplined force – Acquittal in criminal case – Claim for appointment – Held: The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the concerned post – If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents.
Administrative law – Administrative decision – Appointment – Disciplined force – Whether the court can substitute its views for the decision taken by the Screening Committee – Held: Object of screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force – The court cannot substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents. Unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. [Para 10][118-C]
Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598 : [2012] 11 SCR 174 – relied on.
2. Entering into the police service required a candidate to be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents.[Para 11][118-G-H]
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591; Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 – relied on.
3.1 A candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character. [Para 13][122-C-D]
3.2 The Screening Committee examined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings for their acquittal and taken the decision. While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post. The Screening Committee examined each and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as per guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force. While so, the court cannot substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. [Paras 15, 17][124-D-F; 125-C]
Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377 : [2014] 11 SCR 155 – held inapplicable.
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.