Read Time: 11 minutes

“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 forces”, reiterated the Supreme Court yesterday.

A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari went on to add that:

“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.”

The Court made these observations while hearing an appeal filed by Union of India against an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing it to issue an order for commencing training for the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force for a person who was denied appointment by the Screening Standing Committee.

The respondent herein was involved in an offence of kidnapping one Nilesh for demand of ransom. He was acquitted of said charges by the Sessions Court after the witness turned hostile.

Thereafter, respondent applied for the post of Constable in CISF and got selected through the Staff   Selection Commission.   He was then required to furnish the documents including attestation forms, certificate of character, character and antecedent certificate from local Station House Officer, and while submitting them, he specified the registration of a criminal case and acquittal from the charges.

As the offer of appointment was conditional, therefore, in   terms of the CISF Circular dated 31.03.2010 he was not allowed to join training. The Ministry of Home Affairs later issued guidelines on 01.02.2012 for consideration of the cases of the candidates against whom criminal cases were registered or tried by the courts.

In furtherance to the said guidelines, a Standing Screening Committee assembled on   27.07.2012   and examined the cases of 89 candidates including the respondent and on 15.10.2012 passed an order that respondent was not eligible for appointment.

Assailing the same, the respondent approached the High Court which on two instances ruled in his favour.

UoI challenged the validity of these contending that until the respondent is honourably acquitted from the charge involving moral turpitude, the decision of the Screening Committee cannot be said to be passed in mala fide, and interference in such decision is not warranted. 

While dealing with the expressions ‘honourable acquittal’, ‘acquitted of blame’ and ‘fully   acquitted’   the Bench was of the opinion that these were unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code and had been developed by judicial pronouncements.

The Bench went on to peruse a few pronouncements to understand the term better. It thus noted,

“…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.   In other words, 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.”

It was further noted that in a criminal case, if the prosecution failed to take steps to  examine crucial witnesses or the witnesses turned hostile, such acquittal would fall within the purview of giving benefit of doubt and the accused cannot be treated as honourably acquitted by the criminal court, said the bench.

Further reliance was placed on a recent decision of the Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr, wherein it was said that acquittal in a criminal case was not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates on the post concerned.

Also, the Court relied on Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others where law with regard to the effect and consequence of acquittal, concealment of criminal case on appointments etc. has been settled.

In Avtar Singh, it was held that an employer has 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.

It was further held that in cases where acquittal is 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.

Noting the pronouncements made in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh, the Bench held that,

“…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.”

With the view that an employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court.

Cause Title: Union Of India And Others v Methu Meda

Click here to access a copy of the Judgment.