An acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not guarantee eligibility for employment in disciplined services, allowing employers discretion in hiring.

JUDGMENT

D.B. Civil Misc.Application No. 175/2021:-

1. It appears that this application has been filed out of abundant caution though there is no delay in filing the appeal.

2. The application is disposed of accordingly.

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 407/2021:-

3. This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20/01/2021. The brief facts are as under:-

4. The respondent original writ petitioner had applied for the post of Constable advertised by the State Government on 25/05/2018. He was selected for the post in question. However, at the time of character verification it was informed by the SHO PS Surwal that a criminal case bearing No.186/2011 was filed against the petitioner which was decided by the Magistrate on 04/01/2016 in favour of the petitioner. He was given benefit of doubt. The petitioner was not offered appointment on this ground. He thereupon filed the petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment whereupon, this appeal has been filed by the State Government.

5. In somewhat similar background while allowing the State appeal by a separate order passed today in DBSAW No.599/2021, we had made the following observation:-

'We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. At the outset, we may record that the observations of the learned Single Judge that a person cannot be deprived of joining the society merely on the ground that the acquittal by way of benefit of doubt or by way of compromise is not in consonance with the several decisions of the Supreme Court on the point. We would refer to some of these judgments shortly. However, for the present, we may record that when it comes to the question of securing public employment particularly when the service is in disciplined or armed force, the courts recognise considerable latitude in the employer to judge the antecedents. Mere acquittal is not seen in every case as a clean chit given to the accused. Clear demarcation is made between cases of acquittal which are termed as honourable acquittal and those where the accused has been given either the benefit of doubt or legal technicality such as lack of sanction though required.

In a recent judgment dated 16/11/2021 in DBSAW No.637/2021 : Union of India Vs. Ex-Constable /dvr Mukesh Kumar, a division bench of this court had occasioned to refer to few judgments. Reference was made to the famous decision in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others : (2016) 8 SCC 471. Reference was also made to the recent judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Rajkumar reported in (2021) 8 SCC 347. The decision in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363. The decision in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others Vs. Anil Kanwaria : (2021) SCC Online 739 was relied upon in which, the following observations were made:-

'The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such as employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to conti