1. Recruitment for police posts — Candidates disclosed criminal cases and were acquitted — Screening Committee rejected candidature based on suitability. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. – Appellants
Versus
PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.20750 of 2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23855 of 2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.69 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23726 of 2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.8905 of 2017)
Decided On : 08-01-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Acquittal of a candidate in criminal prosecution is not conclusive of his suitability unless the acquittal is honourable.
Honourable acquittal may be defined as an acquittal after full consideration of prosecution evidence and the prosecution miserably failing to prove the charges.
Acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment. Employer is still entitled to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint such candidate.
Court cannot substitute its views for decision of the Screening Committee.
Acquittal of a candidate in criminal prosecution is not conclusive of his suitability unless the acquittal is honourable.
Honourable acquittal may be defined as an acquittal after full consideration of prosecution evidence and the prosecution miserably failing to prove the charges.
Acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment. Employer is still entitled to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint such candidate.
Court cannot substitute its views for decision of the Screening Committee.
Subject
Employment - Police Recruitment
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Service law – Recruitment – Candidate involved in criminal case – Acquittal – Acquittal or discharge cannot lead to inference that the candidate was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents – Acquittal not conclusive of suitability unless it is honourable. (Para 10)
(b) Criminal jurisprudence – Honourable acquittal – Expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerated” unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code – Coined by judicial pronouncements – Precise definition difficult – May be defined as an acquittal after full consideration of prosecution evidence and the prosecution miserably failing to prove the charges. (Para 10)
(2013) 1 SCC 598 – Relied upon
(c) Service law – Recruitment – Candidate disclosing information in regard to criminal prosecution – Acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment – Employer still entitled to consider antecedents – Cannot be compelled to appoint such candidate – More so in police force – Decision of Screening Committee must be taken as final unless shown to be mala fide. (Para 12, 13)
(2013) 7 SCC 685; (2015) 2 SCC 591; (2016) 8 SCC 471 – Relied upon
(d) Service law – Appointment – Screening committee examining cases of candidates and reasonings for their acquittal – Following procedures as per guidelines – Finding respondent not suitable – No error – Court cannot substitute its views for decision of the Screening Committee. (Para 15)
(2015) 2 SCC 377 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The question involved in these appeals is whether the candidature of the respondents who had disclosed their involvement in the criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled by the Screening Committee on the ground that they are not suitable for the post of constable in Chandigarh Police and whether the court can substitute its views for the decision taken by the Screening Committee.
Respondents were declared successful in the recruitment for the post of Constable (Executive) in Chandigarh Police after clearing the Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Measurement Test, written test and interview. However, the respondents were denied the employment on the ground that the respondents had been prosecuted in a criminal trial for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC and were acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 29.01.2010 giving them benefit of doubt. The respondents were not suitable for appointment as Constables in the Chandigarh Police.
CAT allowed the OA and set aside the orders of the Screening Committee and directed the competent authority to consider the names of the respondents for appointment to the post of Constable. The State filed writ petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in screening committee decision.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether acquittal entitles appointment as a matter of right or if the Screening Committee can reject candidates based on lack of impeccable integrity. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Police force requires impeccable character; acquittal based on benefit of doubt is not an honourable acquittal; Screening Committee's suitability assessment is final unless mala fide. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 15 )
4. Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle appointment; the employer retains the right to assess suitability and antecedents for disciplined forces. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Appeals allowed — Impugned judgment set aside — Cancellation of candidature upheld. (Para 18 )
6. Does acquittal in a criminal case automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in a police force?
No. Acquittal is not conclusive of suitability. The employer has the right to consider antecedents and examine whether the candidate is suitable, especially for a disciplined force requiring impeccable character and integrity. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 )
7. What constitutes an honourable acquittal in the context of employment suitability?
An honourable acquittal occurs when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges. Acquittals based on the benefit of doubt or witnesses turning hostile are not considered honourable. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. To what extent can a court interfere with the decision of a Screening Committee regarding a candidate's suitability?
The decision of the Screening Committee is final unless it is shown to be mala fide. Courts should not substitute their own views for the decision of the Committee regarding the suitability of a candidate for a disciplined force. (Para 11 , 13 , 15 , 17 )
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted
2. The question involved in these appeals is whether the candidature of the respondents who had disclosed their involvement in the criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled by the Screening Committee on the ground that they are not suitable for the post of constable in Chandigarh Police and whether the court can substitute its views for the decision taken by the Screening Committee. Since the facts and issues are almost identical in all these appeals, they were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we would deal with the facts in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20750 of 2016
3. On 14.03.2010, an advertisement was issued by UT Chandigarh Police through its Deputy Inspector General of Police inviting applications from the candidates to fill up 1200 temporary posts of Constable (Executive) in Chandigarh Police with essential qualification as prescribed in the advertisement with instructions for filling online application form. The recruitment was to be done as per guidelines thereon as well as standing order governing the recruitment of constables. Guideline No.2(A)(a) deals with the circumstances when the candidate does not disclose the factum of his involvement in the attestation form and the same is found subsequently from the verification report. The candidature of such candidates will be cancelled as per aforesaid guideline without making any reference to any Committee for further probe into the conduct of the candidate. In Guideline No.2(A)(b), it is prescribed that if a candidate has disclosed his involvement in some criminal case in the attestation form, then such case will be referred to Screening Committee to assess his suitability for appointment in Chandigarh Police irrespective of the fact that the case is under investigation, trial or resulted in conviction or acquittal.
4. Respondents were declared successful in the recruitment for the post of Constable (Executive) in Chandigarh Police after clearing the Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Measurement Test, written test and interview. However, the respondents were denied the employment on the ground that the respondents had been prosecuted in a criminal trial for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC and were acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 29.01.2010 giving them benefit of doubt. The respondents were not suitable for appointment as Constables in the Chandigarh Police.
5. Aggrieved, respondents filed OA before CAT. CAT vide order dated 24.07.2012 allowed the OA and set aside the orders of the Screening Committee and directed the competent authority to consider the names of the respondents for appointment to the post of Constable. The State filed writ petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed for all the respondents except Ombir holding that there was no concealment of criminal antecedents. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred these appeals.
6. Contention of the appellant is that acquittal of a person does not entitle him to be appointed as a matter of right and the appointing authority may still find such a person unfit to be appointed to the post. It was urged by the appellant that even though the respondents were acquitted in the criminal case, the appointment of the respondents to the post of Constable in Chandigarh police which is a disciplined force, was found not desirable by the appointing authority. It was submitted that the respondents were not honourably case was referred to the Committee headed by Senior Superintendent of Police and it was found that the acquitted of the offences and the acquittal was only based on the extension of benefit of doubt. Contention of the appellant is that the post of Constable in disciplinary force demands an impeccable integrity and track record besides good character and suitability. Further contention is that the court cannot overreach the jurisd
