1. Appointment of constable cancelled due to concealment of criminal case and false address; subsequent acquittal in criminal case; refusal of reinstatement by police authorities. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 167
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 678 of 2021
Decided On : 28-02-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere acquittal in criminal case does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service – Acquittal has to be honourable.
Mere acquittal in criminal case does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service – Acquittal has to be honourable.
Subject
Employment Law - Police Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
Service Law – Appointment – Cancellation of selection as Constable in Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police for involvement in a criminal case – Acquittal in criminal case – Mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service – Acquittal has to be honourable – If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be inferred that he was falsely involved, or he had no criminal antecedents – There is requirement of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force – Director General being highest functionary in police hierarchy, was the best Judge to consider suitability of petitioner for induction into police force – Impugned order being just and proper, Court not inclined to interfere with same in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution of India – Petition dismissed. (Paras 11, 12, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Instant special leave petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in LPASW No. 71 of 2018, whereby High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant and confirmed order dated 14.05.2018 passed by Single Bench dismissing the SWP No. 1766 of 2017. Precise question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether Director General of Police, Jammu & Kashmir, Srinagar, who after examining the record of petitioner had come to conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to hold the post into police force in view of his criminal background, could be compelled to reinstate petitioner on his acquittal in criminal case.
Findings of Court:
Though scope of Article 136 of Constitution of India is very wide, power conferred thereunder being a very special and extraordinary power, it has to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases.
Result : Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends that acquittal in the criminal case was honourable, thereby removing the basis for finding him unsuitable for the police force. (Para 6 )
3. Acquittal based on benefit of doubt is not an honourable acquittal; police force requires impeccable character; suitability decisions by competent authorities are generally final. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in a disciplined force; the acquittal must be honourable. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed; High Court order upholding the refusal of reinstatement confirmed. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Does acquittal in a criminal case automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in the police force?
No. Mere acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment. The employer retains the right to consider the candidate's antecedents and determine suitability, especially for a disciplined force requiring impeccable character and integrity. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. What constitutes an honourable acquittal?
An honourable acquittal occurs when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution's case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges. Acquittals based on the benefit of doubt or technical grounds are not considered honourable. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 )
8. What is the standard of review for a Screening Committee's decision regarding a candidate's suitability based on criminal antecedents?
The decision of the Screening Committee or the highest functionary in the police hierarchy regarding suitability is generally final and cannot be questioned unless it is shown to be mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations. (Para 10 , 13 , 14 )
9. Can an employer consider a candidate's antecedents if the criminal case has already been concluded?
Yes. Even where an employee has truthfully declared a concluded criminal case, the employer still possesses the right to consider the candidate's antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint them. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The instant special leave petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in LPASW No. 71 of 2018, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant and confirmed the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Single Bench dismissing the SWP No. 1766 of 2017.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner had successfully participated in the selection process conducted in 2008-2009 for the post of constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police, and he was issued an appointment letter dated 20.08.2009. The petitioner thereafter was deputed to the Police Training School, Manigam for undergoing the nine months BRTC course. It appears that thereafter the search slips of the ten newly recruited constables including the petitioner, were sent to the Director, Finger Print Bureau (CPPB) and NCRB East, New Delhi, for record and reference purpose, and the said Bureau vide the letter dated 07.12.2009 responded that the petitioner was involved in a case registered as FIR No. 52/2007 under Section 379 of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 6 of Forest Act, at the Police Station, Kralgund. The said case was stated to be pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara. The matter was taken up with the Deputy Inspector General of Police, NKR, Baramulla, by the Police District Headquarter, Handwara, for cancellation of the selection of the petitioner. During the course of inquiry, a summary of allegations and charge-sheet were served to the petitioner. It was alleged that in the said criminal case, the petitioner was released on bail after four days of his arrest, and therefore the petitioner had good knowledge of his involvement in the criminal case and that he had consciously concealed the said information. It was also found during the course of inquiry that the petitioner had shown his residence at village Gundchobotra instead of Pakhribal in order to get a clean chit at the time of police verification. Under the circumstances, the appointment order dated 20.08.2009 of the petitioner was cancelled by the order dated 01.03.2010.
3. The petitioner challenged the said order of cancellation of his appointment by filing the writ petition being SWP No. 2616 of 2011 in the High Court. In the meantime, the petitioner was tried and acquitted in the criminal case by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara vide the Judgment dated 26.04.2011. The said petition therefore came to be disposed of vide the order dated 18.05.2016 whereby the impugned order dated 01.03.2010 was set aside by the High Court. It was directed to the concerned respondent to take further action in view of the communication dated 27.02.2012 which in respect of the other persons similarly situated as the petitioner. On the reconsideration, the Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar, passed the order dated 31.07.2017 stating inter-alia that in view of the criminal background of the petitioner, he was found unsuitable for the post of constable in the disciplined force.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31.07.2017, the petitioner filed the writ petition being SWP No. 1766 of 2017 seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the Single Bench vide the judgment and order dated 14.05.2018, whereby the Single Bench placing reliance on the decision of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration And Others vs. Pradeep Kumar and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 797 held that the decision of the Director General of Police, the highest functionary in the hierarchy of police department, to consider the suitability of the appellant for induction into police force, could not be called into question. The aggrieved petitioner therefore filed the LPA, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide the impugned order.
5. Though the matter was argued at length by the learned counsels for the p
