Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs Pradeep Kumar and Another

Page No. 2 of 15 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

case was referred to the Committee headed by Senior

Superintendent of Police and it was found that the

Page No. 3 of 15 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 Page No. 4 of 15 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 jurisdiction of the Screening Committee by

substituting its own view in the decision of the said

Committee and hence, the impugned judgment of the High

Court and the Tribunal is not sustainable.

7. Per contra, contention of the respondents is that the

criminal case against the respondents was a case of 'no

evidence' and the acquittal of the respondents is an

honourable acquittal and the same cannot be termed to be

the case of 'benefit of doubt'. Moreover, respondents had

fairly disclosed the factum of facing criminal trial by giving

complete details while applying for the job and there was no

suppression on the part of the respondents. On behalf of the

respondents, much reliance was placed upon Joginder Singh v.

Union Territory of Chandigarh and others (2015) 2 SCC 377. Page No. 5 of 15

8. On the basis of the aforesaid rival contentions urged on

behalf of both the parties, the following points arise for

consideration:-

(i) Whether the contention of respondents that they were honourably acquitted and that they should not be deprived of being appointed to the post of Constable is acceptable?

(ii) Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and directing the authorities to consider the respondents to the post of Constable in the disciplined police force?

9. On 23.06.2010, the Inspector General of police, UT

Chandigarh issued Standing Order No.44 of 2010 laying down

the guidelines to consider cases of candidates selected in

Chandigarh Police on having found involvement in criminal

cases in the past. This standing order deals with the cases of

candidates before issuance of appointment and after issuance

of appointment and joining. Relevant portion of the said

Guidelines reads as under:-

"GUIDELINES (A) CASES BEFORE ISSUE OF APPOINTMENT

(a) The candidature will be cancelled in case the candidate does not disclose the fact of his involvement and/or arrest in criminal case(s), complaint case(s), preventive proceedings etc. in the attestation form and the fact is subsequently found out from any verification report

Page No. 6 of 15 received from the District authorities or for any/other source.

(b) If a candidate has disclosed his involvement and/or arrest in criminal cases(s), complaint case(s), preventive proceedings etc. the case will be referred to the Screening Committee to assess his suitability for appointment in Chandigarh Police irrespective of the fact that the case is under investigation, trial or decided in conviction or acquittal.

........."

In Guideline 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 decided in conviction or acquittal.

In the present case, in all the cases of respondents, the

aforesaid situation arises. On noticing the acquittal of the

candidates, the cases of respondents were referred to

Screening Committee. The Screening Committee carefully

examined the cases of the respondents and the reasonings for

their acquittal and the candidature of the respondents were

rejected finding them not suitable.

10. The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the

suitability of the candidates in the concerned post. If a person

Page No. 7 of 15 is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that

he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents.

Unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot

claim the benefit of the case. What is honourable acquittal,

was considered by this Court in Deputy Inspector General of

Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598, in

which this Court held as under:-

"24. The meaning of the expression “honourable acquittal” came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression “honourably acquitted”. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."

11. Entering into the police service required a candidate to

be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents. In

Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar

Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, the respondent was acquitted

based on the compromise. This Court held that even though Page No. 8 of 15 acquittal was based on compromise, it is still open to the

Screening Committee to examine the suitability of the

candidate and take a decision. Emphasizing upon the

importance of character and integrity required for joining

police force/discipline force, in Mehar Singh case, this Court

held as under:-

"23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such person’s involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this Court as its object appears to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force.

24. We find no substance in the contention that by cancelling the respondents’ candidature, the Screening Committee has overreached the judgments of the criminal court. We are aware that the question of co-relation between a criminal case and a departmental enquiry does not directly arise here, but, support can be drawn from the principles laid down by this Court in connection with it because the issue involved is somewhat identical, namely, whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to work in the department. While the standard of proof in a criminal Page No. 9 of 15 case is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminal cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile. Such acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not stand on a par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the witnesses being won over. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 787 this Court has taken a view that departmental proceedings can proceed even though a person is acquitted when the acquittal is other than honourable.

25. The expression “honourable acquittal” was considered by this Court in S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598. In that case this Court was concerned with a situation where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a police officer. Criminal case was pending against him under Section 509 IPC and under Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act. He was acquitted in that case because of the non-examination of key witnesses. There was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case. Two material witnesses turned hostile. Referring to the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541, where in somewhat similar fact situation, this Court upheld a bank’s action of refusing to reinstate an employee in service on the ground that in the criminal case he was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt and, therefore, it was not an honourable acquittal, this Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings. This Court observed that the expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame” and “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code. They are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant by the expression “honourably acquitted”. This Court expressed that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

................

33. So far as respondent Mehar Singh is concerned, his case appears to have been compromised. It was urged that acquittal recorded pursuant to a compromise should not be

Page No. 10 of 15 treated as a disqualification because that will frustrate the purpose of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. We see no merit in this submission. Compromises or settlements have to be encouraged to bring about peaceful and amiable atmosphere in the society by according a quietus to disputes. They have to be encouraged also to reduce arrears of cases and save the litigants from the agony of pending litigation. But these considerations cannot be brought in here. In order to maintain integrity and high standard of police force, the Screening Committee may decline to take cognizance of a compromise, if it appears to it to be dubious. The Screening Committee cannot be faulted for that.

...............

35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even hand."

Page No. 11 of 15 The same principle was reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh

and Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591.

12. While considering the question of suppression of relevant

information or false information in regard to criminal

prosecution, arrest or pendency of criminal case(s) against the

candidate, in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016)

8 SCC 471, three-Judges Bench of this Court summarized the

conclusion in para (38). As per the said decision in para

(38.5), "In a case where the employee has made declaration

truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has

the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to

appoint the candidate."

13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case

does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the

post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the

antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for

appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court

in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a

candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of

impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal Page No. 12 of 15 antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is

acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was

honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of

the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is

shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also must

be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must

examine the candidate with utmost character.

14. In the case in hand, the details of the criminal cases in

which the respondents were involved and the reasonings for

their acquittal and the consideration by the Screening

Committee are as under:-

Party Allegations Reasons for acquittal Consideration Name/ by the SLP No. Screening Committee Pradeep • FIR under • PW-1 • Accused Kumar Sections 148, (complainant) and acquitted SLP(C) 149, 323 and PW-2 turned because No. 506 IPC. hostile and denied star 20750/16 • Appeared all the contents of witnesses outside the complaint. turned class room of • Witnesses hostile and the admitted their thus complainant signature on accused got therein along complaint but benefit of with other said that they doubt.

people. were obtained on • Appears • Carrying lathis blank papers. that and axe and • IO did not appear. witnesses started • Therefore the trial have been beating the won over. was closed as no complainant useful purpose • Accused 19 and other could be served years age persons of his by examining the at the time

Page No. 13 of 15 village. remaining of witnesses. commission of offence. Narender • FIR under • PW1 • Accused Kumar Sections 148, (complainant) and acquitted SLP (C) 149, 323 and PW2 turned because No.20750 506 IPC. hostile and denied star /16 • Appeared all the contents of witnesses outside the complaint. turned class room of • Witnesses hostile and the admitted their thus complainant signature on accused got therein along complaint but benefit of with other said that they doubt. people. were obtained on • Appears • Carrying lathis blank papers. that and axe and • IO did not appear. witnesses started • Therefore the trial have been beating the won over. was closed as no complainant useful purpose • Accused 21 and other could be served years age persons of his by examining the at the time village. remaining of witnesses. commission of offence. Party Allegations Reasons for acquittal Consideration Name/ by the SLP No. Screening Committee Ajay • FIR under • Delay of four days • Ajay Kumar Kumar Sections 323, in lodging the has been SLP (C) 307 and 34 complaint. involved in No.23855 IPC. • Prosecution could commission /16 • Inflicted of heinous not come out with severe injuries clear motive. bodily to the sons of • Two witnesses injury. the were withheld by • Acquitted complainant the prosecution. on the basis by inflicting • Benefit of doubt of benefit of blows with doubt. given to the hockey sticks accused. and kicks and fist blows to them.

Paramjee • FIR under • Complainant/solit • Accused t Singh Sections 323 ary eye witness acquitted SLP and 506 IPC. admitted the as the (C)No.237 • Appeared at a evidence but solitary eye 26/16 denied the witness satsang along with other involvement of turned accused. accused. hostile. Started • Stated that • Considered

Page No. 14 of 15 creating assailants were the same to hindrance in unidentified be a case of the same and persons. benefit of thereafter • Stated his doubt. upon the signatures were complainant. obtained by police • Trying to stop on blank papers. him gave knife blows to the complainant. • Caused injury to other persons with iron rod. • Threatened to kill the persons with a pistol.

Ombir • FIR under • The complainant • The SLP(C) Sections 323, and one Pradeep accused No.8905/ 354, 506/34 (PW2) has turned was 17 IPC. hostile and acquitted • Allegation is therefore as the that Ombir prosecution complainan along with evidence was t did not other closed and the support the co-accused accused case of the persons in acquitted. prosecution furtherance of . their common • The intention accused outraged the has modesty of committed one Sudesh offence of (complainant). outraging • Caused hurt to modesty of her, after woman and which the has been complainant acquitted was admitted on the in the hospital. benefit of doubt.

Page No. 15 of 15

15. From the above details, we find that the Screening

Committee examined each and every case of the respondents

and reasonings for their acquittal and taken the decision.

While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case

has been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a

post in a police force, nature of offence in which he is

involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an

extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned

hostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be

considered by the Screening Committee for taking the

decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post. As

pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each

and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took

decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of

Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as

per guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is to ensure

that only persons with impeccable character enters police

force. While so, the court cannot substitute its views for the

decision of the Screening Committee.

Page No. 16 of 15

16. On behalf of the respondents, much reliance was placed

upon Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and

Others (2015) 2 SCC 377. In the said case, the appellant

thereon was charged under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and

307 IPC but acquitted by the trial court holding that the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against

him since complainant as well as injured eye witnesses failed

to identify the assailants and the complainant had stated that

his signature was obtained on a blank sheet by the

Investigating Officer. The case involved was a family dispute.

In such facts and circumstances, this Court held that acquittal

of appellant Joginder Singh was an honourable acquittal and

hence, he should not be denied appointment to the post in

question. The decision in Joginder Singh case does not

advance the case of the respondents herein.

17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and

high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized.

As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening

Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the

case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of

Page No. 17 of 15 the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the

Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable

for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for

interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view,

erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee

and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

18. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the

appeals are allowed. The cancellation of candidature of the

respondents is upheld. No costs.

…....………………………..J. (R. BANUMATHI)

…....………………………..J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) New Delhi;

January 08, 2018

Page No. 18 of 15