The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering emotional maturity, moral character, and integrity for police employment, and the need to evaluate the nature of acquittal and the gravity of the offence.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Long many years ago, in the year 1996, deciding an issue as to when should a person who is convicted for committing an offence be denied public employment, in the opinion reported as (1996) 4 SCC 17 Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana the Supreme Court had opined that only conviction for such offences which involve a moral turpitude should result in denying public employment. Notwithstanding the said categorical enunciation of the law, with regret, we note that for 17 long years the officers of Delhi Police have refused to abide by the law resulting in hundreds of cases being decided by the Delhi High Court each year on the subject.

2. In the opinion reported as 171 (2010) DLT 705 Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Robin Singh, the Division Bench of this Court noted that the archaic method of character verification was being resorted to by the Delhi Police even in the 21st century. The same was by checking on the police dossiers. The Division Bench had noted how countries abroad had marched ahead with time, taking help of psychological tests evolved by Psychologists. With respect to employment in Police, the Division Bench had highlighted that apart from physical strength and fitness, emotional maturity and ability to remain calm in emotionally charged situations as also good moral character and integrity and lastly ability to handle difficult situations need to be tested for those who seek employment in the police force. It was regretted that the Delhi Police continues to sleep.

3. We are witnessing virtually every week the inability of Police Officers to handle emotionally charged situations. Male Police Officers slapping innocent female protestors; a lady being molested on the street in front of the eyes of her father, when seen to be protesting: and naturally the protest would be hysterical, is met by a violent response from the male police officers who are seen assaulting the lady. These are not nasal beep beeps. They are symptoms of a deep malaise. The only cure is for the police force to disband the archaic recruitment processes and resort to scientific evaluation of the emotional character of a person.

4. With reference to offences being broadly classified as misdemeanours and felonies; the latter being treated as grave vis-a-vis the former, in Robin Singh’s case, the Division Bench had opined that the police personnel can take further help from the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code where-under offences, with reference to the gravity thereof, are classified as cognizable vis-a-vis non-cognizable and bailable vis-a-vis non-bailable. The reason was that the decision of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar’s case (supra) had noted an OM dated February 02, 1973 issued by the Government of Haryana which was based upon a report prepared pursuant to “All India Seminar on Correctional Service”held at New Delhi in March 1969, bringing out how isolation of members of the society breeds criminality and the need to integrate people in the society who have committed non-serious wrongs by not denying public employment. A decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2011) 4 SCC 644 Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar brings out the importance of overlooking indiscreet acts by the youth and not to label a poor man, who in hunger, steals a loaf of bread as a thief for all his life.

5. The decision in Robin Singh’s case also clarifies the law that mere acquittal at a criminal trial would not require it to be treated that the antecedents of the person are good for the reason an acquittal at a criminal trial would only mean that the prosecution could not muster sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt. The decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2007) 9 SCC 755 Management, Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. N.Balakrishnan, and especially the observations in para 21 and 22 thereof would bring out that unless the acquittal is honourable, fact of acquittal, though relevant