Mere pendency of a criminal case cannot justify withholding employment, especially after acquittal.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“A. Call for records of the case;

B. Pass an order directing the Respondents to grant joining to the Applicant to the post of Constable (GD), Secretariat Security Force, in terms of the appointment letter dated 28/08/2023, along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, etc., along with interest at GPF rates;

C. Award costs of the proceedings; and D. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant.”

2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The applicant, being a meritorious candidate, successfully qualified all stages of recruitment for the post of Constable (GD) in the Secretariat Security Force conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, including the Computer-Based Test, Physical Efficiency & Measurement Test, Document Verification, and Medical Examination. An offer of appointment dated 28.08.2023 was issued to the applicant. However, despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions, the respondents have not issued the joining order. The applicant made several representations, but the respondents only replied that the joining to the post in question shall be considered after the final decision of the District Court, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh in FIR No. 165/2021. 2.2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the aforesaid FIR is false and politically motivated, arising from local panchayat elections in which the applicant was wrongly implicated. It was further contended that the applicant has never been convicted and has clean antecedents. Other co-accused in the same case have already joined government service in ITBP and other departments. Therefore, the action of the respondents in withholding the applicant’s joining is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India .

2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is a well-settled principle of law that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny appointment. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471, and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022, learned counsel submitted that in both these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that each case must be considered on its own merits and that a candidate cannot be denied employment solely on account of a pending criminal case. Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Prashant Deep v. High Court of Delhi , W.P.(C) 1960/2019, wherein it was observed that not every brush with the law affects a person’s moral character. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in Gum Dutt Ranga v. GNCTD & Anr., wherein it was held that mere involvement in a criminal case does not, by itself, reflect unsatisfactory character. Additionally, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central Railways & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 11360–11363 of 2018, wherein it was held that the State, being bound by Article 14 of the Constitution, must act fairly and avoid arbitrariness in matters of appointment.

2.4. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that, in view of the aforesaid settled legal principles, the action of the respondents in withholding the applicant’s appointment despite his merit and eligibility is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to law. Accordingly, it was prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue the joining order to the applicant in terms of the appointment letter dated 28.