Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Siddharth Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 3561 of 2023
Decided On : 01-10-2024
(A) Uttar Pradesh Government Order dated 28.04.1958 - Character verification for government service - The Deputy Commissioner of Police rejected the petitioner's candidature based on a prior criminal case despite acquittal, citing concerns over character and suitability for police service. The court emphasized that not every conviction leads to disqualification and that the nature of the crime and circumstances surrounding it must be considered. The court quashed the rejection order, directing a fresh decision considering the petitioner's acquittal. (Paras 1-22)
(B) Recruitment and character verification - The court reiterated that the purpose of character verification is to ensure candidates are suitable for public service, and a mechanical approach to disqualify candidates based solely on past allegations is inappropriate. (Paras 10-20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was rejected for police constable recruitment due to a past criminal case, despite being acquitted. The Deputy Commissioner of Police argued that the acquittal did not clear the petitioner of criminal antecedents. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection arbitrary and emphasized that the nature of the crime and the context of the acquittal must be considered in recruitment decisions. (Paras 18-21)
Issues: The main issues were whether the acquittal should negate the impact of the prior criminal case on the petitioner's suitability for police service and the appropriateness of the Deputy Commissioner's reasoning. (Paras 8-10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that character verification must consider the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the acquittal, rejecting a blanket disqualification based on past allegations. (Paras 10-20)
Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned order quashed, and a fresh decision mandated. (Paras 21-22)
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, Police Commissionerate, Varanasi dated 03.02.2023, rejecting the petitioner's case for appointment as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, on account of a criminal case lodged against him, of which he has been later on acquitted.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition would show that the petitioner staked his claim for the post of a Police Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police. This was in the recruitment year 2013. The petitioner was selected for the post and the date for his training was scheduled as 02.12.2015. After the petitioner was selected, in the Police Verification Report Form (PVR), he disclosed that a criminal case had been lodged against him, in which this Court had stayed proceedings. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi by his order dated 02.02.2016 rejected the petitioner's candidature on ground of pendency of that case. That order of the Senior S.P., Varanasi was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by means of Writ-A No.18399 of 2016, wherein an interim order dated 26. 04.2016 was granted to the following effect :
3. This order was challenged by the State by means of Special Appeal Defective No.130 of 2017. The Division Bench allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2017 and set aside the interim order dated 26.04.2016. The learned Single Judge was required to decide the writ petition on merits. The writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge for hearing on 19.09.2022 and this Court vide judgment and order of that date set aside the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, rejecting the petitioner's candidature, with a remit of the matter to the said Officer carrying a direction to take into account the subsequent acquittal that the petitioner had earned vide judgment and order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Judge directed the Senior S.P. that in taking his decision, he shall exercise his power independently, in accordance with law, but would consider the effect of the judgment of acquittal dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate in the criminal case.
4. When the matter again came up before the respondents, this time, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, Police Commissionerate, Varanasi, he proceeded to reject the petitioner's candidature vide order dated 03.02.2023, holding the judgment of the Trial Court not to have cleansed or purged the petitioner of the lingering shadows of the crime, which in the view of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, he had committed but got away because of some kind of a compromise reached outside Court.
5. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been instituted.
6. A notice of motion was issued on 03.03.2023. Parties have exchanged a short counter and a short rejoinder, besides a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6, to which a rejoinder too has been filed. The parties having exchanged pleadings, this petition was admitted to hearing on 20.09.2024, which proceeded forthwith and judgment was reserved.
7. Heard Mr. Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has gone more by the fact that a crime was registered against the petitioner, wherein after investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet. He has then opined that a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, acquitting the petitioner, does not s
Character verification for public service must consider the nature of past allegations and acquittals, rejecting mechanical disqualification based solely on prior criminal cases.
The cancellation of a candidate's selection based solely on the registration of a criminal case, without evidence of complicity, is unjustified and reflects a lack of proper consideration of the fact....
The suppression of a pending criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate; the nature of the offence and the candidate's overall character must be considered in recruitment decisions.
An acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not equate to an honourable acquittal, affecting eligibility for police service recruitment.
The mere pendency of a criminal complaint, especially from matrimonial disputes, should not disqualify a candidate from public employment.
Post of Constable in Police - Recruitment process - Criminal cases was in no way connected with each other. Criminal cases were instituted by different parties for separate offences. Multiplicity of ....
(1) Termination – Employer has discretion to terminate or condone an omission in disclosure made by a candidate – Even if a truthful disclosure has been made, employer is well within its right to exa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of impeccable character and integrity for candidates in the police force and the impact of criminal antecedents, even if acquitted....
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....
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
