Supreme Court quashes charges against Selection Committee members in compassionate appointment case: Munna Prasad Verma vs. State of U.P. (2022) INSC 744 (2 September 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 2 September 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 744
Judges: Ajay Rastogi, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can members of a selection committee be held criminally liable for relying on documents submitted by an applicant, without any direct involvement in the fabrication of those documents? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning a compassionate appointment obtained using an allegedly forged degree. The court clarified that mere membership in a selection committee does not automatically imply criminal culpability. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

Brijendra Nath Mishra applied for a compassionate appointment after his father’s death, submitting his B.Ed degree dated 19th October, 1999, from Madan Mohan Malviya PG College, affiliated with Gorakhpur University. The Selection Committee considered his application on 19th September 2000 and found him eligible. Consequently, he was appointed on 22nd September 2000 under the dying-in-harness rules.

Later, on 27th September 2002, a complaint was filed by the respondent no. 2 alleging that Brijendra Nath Mishra had used a forged B.Ed degree to secure his appointment. The complaint also implicated the members of the Selection Committee, including the present appellants, alleging they colluded with the officers.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the police filed a final report on 4th November, 2003. However, further investigations were conducted based on the Magistrate’s directions. After multiple rounds of investigation and change of Investigating Officers, a charge sheet was filed on 31st July, 2009, implicating the appellants and others under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Magistrate took cognizance of this charge sheet on 4th August, 2009. The appellants then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the cognizance against them, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 419: Punishment for cheating by personation.
• Section 420: Punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 467: Punishment for forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
• Section 468: Punishment for forgery for purpose of cheating.
• Section 471: Punishment for using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
• Section 120B: Punishment for criminal conspiracy.

The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

The appellants argued that they were merely members of the Selection Committee and had no direct involvement in the creation or fabrication of the forged degree. They contended that they relied on the documents presented by Brijendra Nath Mishra, assuming them to be genuine. They argued that their role as members of the Selection Committee did not automatically make them criminally liable for the alleged forgery.

The respondent argued that the appellants, being members of the Selection Committee, were responsible for verifying the authenticity of the documents submitted by Brijendra Nath Mishra. They contended that the appellants’ failure to do so and their subsequent recommendation for appointment, implicated them in the commission of the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the members of the Selection Committee can be implicated in the commission of a crime solely based on their membership and recommendation of an applicant who submitted a forged document, without any evidence of their direct involvement in the forgery.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants. The Court held that there was no prima facie evidence to implicate the appellants in the commission of the crime. The Court observed that it was not the case of the respondents that the appellants had facilitated Brijendra Nath Mishra in creating or fabricating the forged degree. The Court emphasized that the appellants were implicated merely because they were members of the Selection Committee who relied on the documents placed on record without any verification, assuming them to be genuine.

The Court stated,
“The present appellants are implicated, being the members of the Selection Committee, who relied on the documents placed on record without any verification on the assumption that the documents being genuine, recommended his case for appointment and because they are the members of the Selection Committee, that in itself would not, in any manner, implicate them in the commission of crime”.

The Court further stated,
“It is not the case of the respondents that the present appellants, in any manner, have facilitated Brijendra Nath Mishra either in creating or in fabricating the alleged forged degree of B.Ed for seeking compassionate appointment.”

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the instant appeals and that the trial against the co-accused, Brijendra Nath Mishra, should proceed on its own merits.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence showing any direct or indirect involvement of the appellants in the creation or fabrication of the forged degree. The Court emphasized that the appellants were implicated solely based on their membership of the Selection Committee and their reliance on the documents submitted by the applicant. The Court was of the view that such an implication would be a clear abuse of the process of law.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Mere membership of a selection committee does not automatically imply criminal culpability.
• There must be evidence of direct or indirect involvement in the commission of a crime to implicate a person.
• Criminal proceedings can be quashed if there is no prima facie evidence to support the charges.
• The court emphasized that the members of the Selection Committee cannot be held liable for the forgery done by the applicant, unless there is evidence to show that they had colluded with the applicant.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the trial against the co-accused, Brijendra Nath Mishra, should proceed on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere membership of a selection committee does not automatically imply criminal culpability, and there must be evidence of direct or indirect involvement in the commission of a crime to implicate a person. This judgment clarifies that members of a selection committee cannot be held liable for the forgery done by the applicant, unless there is evidence to show that they had colluded with the applicant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Munna Prasad Verma vs. State of U.P. clarifies that members of a selection committee cannot be held criminally liable for relying on documents submitted by an applicant, without any direct involvement in the fabrication of those documents. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to establish criminal culpability.