Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Milan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 6 Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 826 of 2022
Decided on : 16-09-2022
Employment and Service matter - Posts of Constable - Appointment - Selection process - Allegations against petitioner in said criminal case was that he had clandestinely taken photographs of informant, who was taking a bath and had threatened to circulate the same, if she refused to maintain an illicit relationship with petitioner - Petitioner was thereafter acquitted by Criminal Court vide judgment dated on being given benefit of doubt - Petitioner's counsel submits that as petitioner had been honourably acquitted by the learned Criminal Court, respondents should have issued an appointment order to petitioner, as he was found to be successful in selection process for appointment to post of Constable (GD) in CISF - He further submits that when petitioner had been acquitted in criminal case, after full consideration of prosecution evidence and as prosecution had failed to prove charge levelled against petitioner, it could be said that petitioner was honourably acquitted - Whether acquittal of petitioner would entitle him to be appointed in Paramilitary Force was subsequently left to be decided by Standing Screening Committee
Finding of Court :
As this Court is not sitting as an Appellate Authority, decision of the learned Trial Court that the petitioner is given the benefit of doubt would remain - In view of judgment of Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India V. Bhopal Singh Panchal (supra), a person who is acquitted on being given benefit of doubt cannot be said to be honourably acquitted - In terms of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Methu Meda (supra), the acquittal of a person on ground of benefit of doubt, would not automatically entitle him for employment in a disciplined force - Decision of Standing Screening Committee, which has been made in it's 21st sitting, is to effect that petitioner was found unsuitable for appointment in CISF - As Standing Screening Committee has taken into consideration various parameters and the judgment of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra), prior to taking a decision on issue, Court is of view that no case has been made out for substituting and/or interfering with decision taken by Standing Screening Committee - Further, as there is no averment made by petitioner in his pleadings that decision of Standing Screening Committee was due to malafides, same cannot be substituted in terms of judgment of Apex Court in case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others (supra).
Result : Writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite having been honourably acquitted in the criminal case, the respondents have not appointed the petitioner to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that he had participated in the selection process for appointment to the vacant posts of Constable (GD) in the CISF, pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.07.2018. The petitioner being successful in the selection process was offered appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the CISF and was asked to report to the Principal, RTC, Mundali on 21.06.2021 vide letter dated 11.05.2021. The petitioner reported to the Principal, RTC, Mundali and started his training. During document verification, which was done by the respondents on 01.07.2021, a questionnaire had to be filled up where there was a specific question as to whether the petitioner was involved in a criminal case prior to joining the CISF. The petitioner admitted that he had a criminal case prior to joining the CISF. The petitioner was thereafter directed to submit documents with regard to the criminal case.
4. The petitioner thereafter submitted all the documents relating to GR Case No. 356/2017 under Sections 448/354 (c)/506 IPC arising out of Gohpur P.S. Case No. 302/2017. The Judgment & Order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohpur in GR Case No. 356/2017 had acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. Thereafter, the Commandant cum Deputy Inspector General, KRTC, Mundali issued a letter dated 05.01.2022 to the petitioner, stating that his case had been examined by the Standing Screening Committee and he was found unsuitable for appointment in the CISF.
5. The allegations against the petitioner in the said criminal case was that he had clandestinely taken the photographs of the informant, who was taking a bath and had threatened to circulate the same, if she refused to maintain an illicit relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter acquitted by the Criminal Court vide judgment dated 30.09.2019, on being given the benefit of doubt.
6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the petitioner had been honourably acquitted by the learned Criminal Court, the respondents should have issued an appointment order to the petitioner, as he was found to be successful in the selection process for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the CISF. He further submits that when the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case, after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and as the prosecution had failed to prove the charge levelled against the petitioner, it could be said that the petitioner was honourably acquitted.
In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police & Another vs. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 and the case of Joginder Singh vs Union Territory of Chandigarh, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 377.
7. Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC, on the other hand submits that the petitioner has not been honourably acquitted, as it is clear from the judgment passed by the learned trial court, wherein the petitioner has been acquitted on being given the benefit of doubt. She accordingly submits that there was no infirmity with the Standing Screening Committee’s decision, holding that the petitioner was unsuitable to be appointed in the CISF. She submits that the Standing Screening Committee considered the case of the petitioner, after the petitioner had been acquitted by the Criminal Court on 30.09.2019. She submits that as the competent authority has the right to consider the suitability of a candidate, after he is acquitted in a criminal case and as the said exercise had been undertake
Point of Law : 25. Employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to a candidate, who has been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, as the employer is having a right to consider the candida....
(1) 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.(2) If a person i....
The duty of the prosecution to establish guilt, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the need for a close scrutiny of each case to determine suitability for appointment.
Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically confer a right to appointment in the police service, especially when the acquittal is not a clean one.
An acquittal in a criminal case does not grant automatic eligibility for appointment to sensitive positions, as suitability must be assessed based on all antecedents.
Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically confer entitlement to employment in a sensitive law enforcement role.
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
