IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Mandeep Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank & Anr. - Respondents
CWP-1827-2019
Decided On : 31-10-2022
Writ Petition - Appointment Denial - Article 226 - Indian Penal Code, Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 506 - Appointment denial based on pendency of criminal case quashed by court - Court disapproves reliance on appointment letter clause and emphasizes presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Probationary Officer, was selected, and issued an appointment letter. However, the appointment was denied based on a pending criminal case, which was later quashed by the court. The petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the denial of appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner at the time of appointment denial, as the case had been quashed. The court disapproved the reliance on the appointment letter clause and emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of appointment based on the pendency of a criminal case, despite the case being quashed by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the mere registration of a criminal case cannot be a ground for denying a candidate's rights to participate in the appointment process. The court disapproved the reliance on the appointment letter clause and highlighted the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Final Decision: The court quashed the appointment denial and directed the respondents to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner, along with service benefits, within a specified period.
JUDGMENT
Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P-8) and order/communication dated 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-10), whereby offer of appointment issued to the petitioner for the post of Probationary Officer has been cancelled; along with certain other prayers.
2. The facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Probationary Officer in the respondent-Bank. The petitioner participated in the process of selection and was ultimately selected as per her merit. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued the appointment letter by the respondent-Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner was deputed to the induction training at Gurugram. When the petitioner joined the training, she informed the respondent-Bank that during the period of the process of selection, a criminal case, i.e. FIR No.83 dated 20.02.2017, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452 and 506 of the Indian Panel Code at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, District Kurukshetra, was registered; involving the name of the petitioner as well, along with other family members. Then the respondent-Bank had informed the petitioner that the petitioner should get clearance in the said criminal case. Later on, the petitioner was asked to report for training at Lucknow. However, the petitioner could not join because earlier the respondent-Bank had told her to get clearance in the criminal case, but the criminal case was still pending at that time. However, the same has now been quashed by this Court, vide order dated 20.07.2022 passed in CRM-M-27571-2022 (Bali Ram Hari and others Vs. State of Haryana and others). In the meantime, the petitioner had filed CWP-28038-2017 which was disposed of by directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. Vide the impugned order dated 17.10.2018 (Annexure P-10), the respondents have denied the appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the criminal case against the petitioner has not attained finality and also relying upon Clause 9 of the appointment letter issued to the petitioner; which stipulated that the appointment was subject to satisfactory report regarding her character and antecedents from the Police Authorities and non-pendency of any criminal case/prosecution against her. The said clause also provided that her conviction, though released on probation and the compounding of offence shall also be treated as report adverse to her. Therefore, in essence, the petitioner has been denied to joining on the post; on the ground of pendency of the criminal case without recognizing the fact that the case against the petitioner already stands quashed.
3. Arguing the case, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent-Bank is totally baseless. When the petitioner applied for the job, there was no criminal case registered or pending against her. It was during the period of the process that a false case had come into being involving the name of the petitioner as well, along with her entire family. Even that case stands quashed by this Court. Therefore, there was no basis left for the respondents to deny the appointment to the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016(3) S.C.T. 672. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the appointment to the post of Probationary Officer along with all consequential benefits. The writ petition deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner, undisputedly, was involved in a criminal case. The appointment letter issued to the petitioner specifically contained a stipulation that any pendency of the criminal case or conviction or compounding of th
AI
Mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be the basis for denying public appointment, and failure to provide a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice.
The gravity of the offence, the stage of trial, and other relevant aspects must be considered while deciding on the cancellation of selection based on a criminal case. Trivial allegations may not be ....
The deliberate furnishing of false information about the non-pendency of a criminal case can warrant the cancellation of candidature or termination of service, as per the guidelines laid down in rele....
Acquittal in criminal cases does not guarantee employment; employers can consider a candidate's criminal history when making hiring decisions.
Section 12 of Act of 1958 reads Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.
Denial of appointment based on the pendency of FIR requires the candidate to be named in the FIR, summoned, or charge-sheeted.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.