Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
METHU MEDA - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6238 OF2021 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 23856 OF 2014)
DECIDED ON : 06-10-2021
(A) Service Law – Appointment – Credentials of candidates – Employer is having right to consider suitability of candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking decision for induction of candidate in employment – Acquittal on technical ground in respect of offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to continuance of employee – Even in a case, truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made by employee, still employer has right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. (Para 18)
(B) Service Law – Appointment – Post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force – Acquittal in criminal case – Respondent who wishes to join 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 – Employer is having right to consider nature of acquittal or decide until he is completely exonerated because even a possibility of his taking to life of crimes poses a threat to discipline of police force – Standing Order has entrusted task of taking decisions in these matters to Screening Committee and decision of Committee would be final unless mala fide – If a person is acquitted giving him benefit of doubt, from charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for employment, that too in disciplined force – Employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of circulars issued by Screening Committee – Mere disclosure of offences alleged and result of trial is not sufficient – In said situation, employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to candidate – Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Respondent applied for post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and got selected through the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). Respondent, while submitting attestation form, specified the registration of criminal case and acquittal from the charges in a trial by competent court. Validity of the order passed by Single Judge and also by the Division Bench have been assailed, inter alia, contending, until the respondent is honourably acquitted from the charge involving moral turpitude and decision of the Screening Committee is not passed mala fide, interference in such decision is not warranted.
Findings of Court:
Acquittal on technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, 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 employee, still the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint candidate.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. Questioning the validity of the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 1090 of 2013 on 20.12.2013 upholding the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 27.09.2013 in Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013, this appeal has been preferred.
3. The facts unfolded in the present case are that the respondent was found involved in an offence of kidnapping of Nilesh for demand of ransom. An FIR was registered against him on 22.8.2009. After investigation challan was filed, and he was tried before the Sessions Court, Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Case Serial No. 1 of 2010 for the charge framed against him under Sections 347/327/323/506 (Part-II) and 364A IPC. The Sessions Court acquitted him for the said charge because the complainant, who was abducted, turned hostile in the Court. Thereafter, respondent applied for the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (for short “CISF”) and got selected through the Staff Selection Commission (for short “SSC”). An offer of appointment for provisional selection to the post of Constable/GD was issued to the respondent on 30.3.2012, subject to the conditions given in the agreement form. The respondent was required to furnish the documents including attestation forms, certificate of character, character and antecedent certificate from local Station House Officer. The respondent, while submitting the attestation form, specified the registration of abovesaid criminal case and acquittal from the charges in a trial by the competent court.
4. As the offer of appointment was conditional, therefore, in terms of the CISF Circular No. EEG7023/TRG.SEC/ADM.I/CIRCULARS/20101157 dated 31.03.2010. he was not allowed to join training. The Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter No. I45020/6/2010Pers.II issued the guidelines on 01.02.2012 for consideration of the cases of the candidates against whom criminal cases were registered or tried by the courts.
5. In furtherance to the said guidelines, the case of the respondent was referred to AIG(L&R), CISF Hqrs, New Delhi with an information to IG/TS, CISF(TS) NISA, Hyderabad vide letter No. F37023/CISF/RTC(D)/Trg./CBG/2012/2656 dated 04.05.2012. The 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.
6. Questioning the validity of the said action and asking for consequential reliefs, Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013 was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 27.09.2013, allowed the Writ Petition directing the respondents therein to issue an order for sending the respondent herein on training commencing with effect from 21.10.2013. The Court further held that he would be entitled for all consequential benefits including seniority, notional fixation of salary etc. but back wages were denied. The said order was assailed before the Division Bench by filing Writ Appeal, but it was also dismissed, which led to filing the present appeal through the department.
7. The validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also by the Division Bench have been assailed, inter alia, contending, until the respondent is honourably acquitted from the charge involving moral turpitude and the decision of the Screening Committee is not passed mala fide, interference in such decision is not warranted. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Inspector General of Police & Another vs. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598 to clarify the meaning of ‘honourable acquittal’.
8. It is argued that merely making a disclosure of the criminal case in the attestation form is not sufficient. As per the Policy Guidelines dated 01.02.2012, in view of involvement of the respondent in heinous offences including the offences under Sections 327/347/364A IPC, he would not be entitled for appointment until honourably acquitted. Even though, th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
