Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hima Kohli, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Appellants
Versus
Bhupendra Yadav – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5984 of 2023 Arising Out of Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 27301 of 2018
Decided On : 20-09-2023
(A) Service Law – Termination – Acquittal in criminal case – A candidate who proposes to participate in a selection process, must furnish true and correct information in respect of his character and antecedents – A candidate who makes a false declaration or suppresses material information or furnishes half–baked information which may not be whole truth, can be visited with adverse consequences to the point of his exclusion even though he may have qualified in entire selection process, based on falsity/suppression – Employer has discretion to terminate or condone an omission in disclosure made by a candidate – While doing so, employer must act with prudence, keep in mind nature of post and duties required to be discharged – Even if a truthful disclosure has been made, employer is well within its right to examine fitness of a candidate and in a concluded criminal case, keep in mind nature of offence and verify whether acquittal is honourable or benefit has been extended on technical reasons – If employer arrives at conclusion that incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the post, he may not be appointed or continued in service – Respondent was acquitted by trial Court primarily on account of fact that complainant did not support case set up by prosecution and other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile – Case involved moral turpitude and respondent was charged with non-compoundable offences of a serious nature – Judgment of trial Court cannot be treated as a clean acquittal – Mere acquittal of respondent in criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to subject post – Appellant–State Government has judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all relevant factors relating to antecedents of respondent – Impugned Judgment quashed and set aside. (Paras 8, 10, 16 and 19)
(B) Service Law – Appointment – Higher the post, more stringent ought to be standards to be applied – Standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a Law Enforcement Agency must always be higher and more rigorous – Possession of a higher moral conduct is one of basic requirements for appointment to a post as sensitive as that in police service – Once appointed to such a post, responsibility would be cast on respondent of maintaining law and order in society, enforcing law, dealing with arms and ammunitions, apprehending suspected criminals and protecting life and property of public at large. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Challenge has been laid in present appeal to the judgment dated 24th January, 2018, passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, dismissing the appeal filed by appellant – State Government against the order dated 17th November, 2017, passed by Single Judge in a writ petition and relegating the matter back to competent authority for passing a fresh order. Question that is required to be answered is whether appellants have erred in rejecting candidature of the respondent to post of Constable, despite the latter having truthfully disclosed in his affidavit the fact that he had faced trial in a criminal case which had resulted in his acquittal.
Findings of Court:
Decision taken by appellant–State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for High Court to have interfered therewith. As a result, judgment dated 17th November, 2017, passed by Single Judge is upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned Judgment dated 24th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A challenge has been laid in the present appeal to the judgement dated 24th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, dismissing the appeal1[Writ Appeal No. 46 of 2018] filed by the appellant – State Government against the order dated 17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition2[Writ Petition No. 19621 of 2017] and relegating the matter back to the competent authority for passing a fresh order.
3. We may first allude to the relevant facts of the case.
3.1 In May, 2015, a criminal case3[Vide Crime No.64/2015, registered at PS Isagarh, District Ashoknagar, under Sections 341, 354 (D), 323, 34 IPC and under Sections 7, 8 and 11(d)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for short ‘the POCSO Act’.] was registered against the respondent who was arrayed as an accused in a Special Sessions Case4[Special Sessions Case No. 16 of 2015 instituted on 21st May, 2015] in the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar (MP). Charges were framed against the respondent under Sections 341, 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code5[For short ‘IPC’] and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act. The case set up by the prosecution against the respondent was that on 14th February, 2015, he along with the other co-accused had wrongfully restrained the complainant therein (a minor) and tried to outrage her modesty. Despite the complainant spurring the repeated efforts made by the respondent to befriend her, he had persistently stalked her, threw a letter and flowers at her and insisted that she speaks to him.
3.2 Records reveal that during the course of the trial, the complainant had turned hostile. On a perusal of the judgement6[Dated 26th October, 2015]. passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, MP in the Sessions Case4[Special Sessions Case No. 16 of 2015 instituted on 21st May, 2015], it transpires that the parties arrived at a settlement. As a result, not only the complainant but even her friends who had witnessed the incident, went into a denial mode and refused to support the case set up by the prosecution. The trial Court recorded the fact that a compromise was arrived at between the complainant and the respondent (accused therein) and based on the compromise application preferred by the parties, the charges framed against him under Section 341 of the IPC, were compounded. As the other offences for which the respondent was charged, were non-compoundable, the case continued but because the prosecutrix and the witnesses cited by the prosecution turned hostile, the trial Court passed an order, acquitting the respondent of the charges framed under Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act.
3.3 In the very next year, i.e., 2016, the appellant – State Government conducted an entrance examination for filling up vacancies of the post of constables. The respondent participated in the said examination and qualified the same under the OBC category. Thereafter, a physical test was conducted which was also cleared by the respondent. Finally, based on his performance, the respondent was selected and posted at Ujjain. Vide letter dated 22nd July, 2017, the appellant No.3 – Superintendent of Police, Ujjain directed the respondent to furnish requisite information in terms of the prescribed form. In the verification form, the respondent disclosed information about his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
3.4 On scrutinizing his verification form, the appellant No. 3 – Superintendent of Police, Ujjain addressed a communication dated 24th August, 20177[No./SP/Ujjain/Est./P3756A/17 dated: 24.08.17] to the respondent informing him that he was found to be unfit for being recruited. For ready reference, the contents of the
The concealment of a pending criminal case during the employment application process can justify termination of services, as integrity and character are critical for positions within the judicial sys....
Character verification for public service must consider the nature of past allegations and acquittals, rejecting mechanical disqualification based solely on prior criminal cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to disclose criminal antecedents may not justify termination of employment, especially if the charges are trivial and do not affect 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
