Supreme Court Allows Appointment Despite Past Acquittal in Domestic Dispute: Pramod Singh Kirar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2 December 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 2 December 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 1662
Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a person be denied a government job for a past criminal case, even if they were acquitted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a candidate was denied a position as a police constable due to a past case of domestic dispute that ended in acquittal. The Court examined whether the employer has the right to reject a candidate based on past criminal charges, even when the candidate was acquitted and had disclosed the case truthfully. The bench was composed of Justices M. R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M. R. Shah.

Case Background

The appellant, Pramod Singh Kirar, applied for the position of Police Constable. In his application form, he disclosed that he had been tried for an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which relates to cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a wife. Although he had been acquitted in that case, his candidature was rejected on 16 December 2014. The appellant challenged this rejection in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

The High Court’s Single Judge bench initially ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the cancellation of his candidature and directing the State to appoint him, along with 50% back wages. However, the State appealed this decision.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court’s Single Judge bench initially ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the cancellation of his candidature and directing the State to appoint him, along with 50% back wages. The State appealed, and the Division Bench overturned the Single Judge’s decision, citing previous Supreme Court judgments that allowed employers to consider a candidate’s criminal history even if they were acquitted. The Division Bench held that the employer cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate with a criminal history, even if the candidate had disclosed the information. The High Court also dismissed the review petition.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the employer’s right to consider a candidate’s criminal history, even after an acquittal. The relevant provision is Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a wife. The court also considered the principles of natural justice and the rights of the accused.

The Court also referred to the judgment in *Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.* [(2016) 8 SCC 471] which deals with the issue of suppression of information by the employee and the right of the employer to consider the antecedents of the employee.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the High Court Division Bench erred in overturning the Single Judge’s decision.
• It was contended that the case against the appellant was not for a serious offense but for an offense under Section 498A of the IPC, arising from a matrimonial dispute.
• The appellant’s counsel highlighted that the appellant was acquitted in 2006 following a settlement between the husband and wife. The applications for the post of Constable were invited in 2013/2014.
• It was argued that the appellant should not be penalized for an incident that occurred 7-8 years prior, especially since he was only 18 years old at the time.
• The appellant had disclosed the fact of his being tried for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC in the verification form.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.* [(2016) 8 SCC 471] and *Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya* [(2021) 10 SCC 136].
• The State argued that an employer has the right to consider a candidate’s criminal antecedents, even in cases of acquittal.
• It was submitted that the employer has the ultimate discretion to appoint a person with a criminal background.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core question was whether the High Court was correct in denying appointment to the appellant based on a past criminal case that resulted in acquittal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished *Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.* [(2016) 8 SCC 471] stating that the said case dealt with suppression of information, which was not the case here.
• The Court distinguished *Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya* [(2021) 10 SCC 136] stating that in the said case, the employee was convicted, and there was suppression of material facts, which was not the case here.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant had disclosed the past case, was acquitted, and the case was related to a matrimonial dispute that was settled. The Court also noted that the incident occurred a long time ago when the appellant was young. The Court highlighted that the appellant was not convicted of any offense and that the case was settled out of court. The Court’s sentiment was that the appellant should not be penalized for a past incident that did not result in a conviction, especially since he had disclosed the information truthfully.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, stating that the appellant should not be denied the appointment. The Court emphasized that the appellant had disclosed the case, was acquitted, and the case was related to a matrimonial dispute that was settled. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to all benefits from the date of actual appointment. The Court stated:

“Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be on settlement (between husband and wife).”

The Court further observed:

“Neither there was any suppression of material fact on the part of the appellant nor he was convicted for any offence under the IPC. The alleged incident was of the year 2001 which resulted into acquittal in the year 2006 and he applied for the post of Constable in the year 2013/2014.”

The Court also clarified:

“However, at the same time, on the principle of no work no pay, the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment.”

The Court restored the Single Judge’s order, directing the State to appoint the appellant within four weeks and stated that he would be entitled to benefits from the date of actual appointment. The bench comprised of Justices M. R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.

Key Takeaways

• A candidate should not be denied a government job solely based on a past criminal case that resulted in acquittal, especially if the case is related to a matrimonial dispute that was settled.
• Honest disclosure of past criminal cases is important and should not be penalized if the candidate was acquitted.
• The employer needs to consider the nature of the offense, the time elapsed since the incident, and whether the candidate was convicted.
• The principle of “no work no pay” applies, and the candidate is entitled to benefits from the date of actual appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent(s) to appoint the appellant to the post of Constable within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also directed that the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment only.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a candidate should not be denied a government job solely based on a past criminal case that resulted in acquittal, especially if the case is related to a matrimonial dispute that was settled. This judgment clarifies that the employer must consider the specific facts of each case and cannot automatically reject a candidate based on a past criminal charge that did not result in a conviction. This is a departure from a strict interpretation of the *Avtar Singh* [(2016) 8 SCC 471] and *Anil Kanwariya* [(2021) 10 SCC 136] judgments, where the court had held that the employer has the right to consider the antecedents of the employee.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Pramod Singh Kirar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh* allows the appointment of a candidate who had a past criminal case that resulted in acquittal. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the specific facts of each case and not automatically denying employment based on past charges, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes that are resolved. This judgment provides relief to candidates who have been acquitted in past cases and ensures that they are not unfairly penalized for such incidents.