Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Candidate with Criminal Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar (26 November 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 1017

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Can a police department reject a candidate for a job if they were previously involved in a criminal case, even if they were later acquitted due to a compromise? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the importance of maintaining integrity within the police force. This case examines whether a compromise acquittal is equivalent to a clean acquittal when considering a candidate’s suitability for police service. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud.

Case Background

In 2012, the Professional Examination Board of Madhya Pradesh advertised openings for Subedars, Platoon Commanders, and Inspectors of Police. The advertisement specified that character verification would be conducted for selected candidates, and appointments would only be made if the candidates were found suitable. The advertisement also emphasized that candidates must provide correct and complete information in their verification forms, particularly regarding any criminal cases, and that concealing information or providing false details could lead to disqualification.

The respondent, Abhijit Singh Pawar, applied for one of these positions and submitted an affidavit on 22 December 2012. In this affidavit, he disclosed that a case had been registered against him in 2006 under Sections 323, 325, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at the Madhav Nagar Police Station. He stated that he had appeared in court, was never arrested, and the case was still pending. However, just four days later, on 26 December 2012, the respondent entered into a compromise with the complainant, and the court allowed the compounding of offenses under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, resulting in his acquittal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent’s candidature was rejected on 19 July 2013 by the Additional Director General of Police (Selection/Recruitment), Police Headquarters, Bhopal, based on the character verification report. The order stated that police service requires high moral conduct and that individuals with criminal records are unsuitable. Aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 9412 of 2013 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing that the respondent be appointed if his name was on the merit list, with all consequential benefits except back wages. The State challenged this decision by filing Writ Appeal No. 132 of 2015. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, which led to the State filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions:

• Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the compounding of offenses. Sub-section (8) states that the composition of an offense has the effect of an acquittal. “The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.”
• Rule 12(3) of the M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1996: This rule states that inclusion of a candidate’s name in the list does not guarantee appointment; the candidate must be found suitable in all respects.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Madhya Pradesh:

• The State argued that under Rule 12(3) of the M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1996, inclusion in the selection list does not guarantee appointment. A candidate must be suitable in all aspects.
• The State contended that the respondent’s past involvement in a criminal case, even if resolved through compromise, made him unsuitable for police service.
• The State relied on the decisions in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh [1], State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Parvez Khan [2], and Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and another [3], to support its claim that the respondent’s candidature was rightly rejected.

Arguments by the Respondent (Amicus Curiae):

• The Amicus Curiae argued that Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, states that the composition of an offense results in an acquittal.
• It was submitted that the respondent had not suppressed any information and had been acquitted, thus the High Court was correct in accepting his challenge.
• The Amicus Curiae relied on the decisions in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others [4] and Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others [5] to support the respondent’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the rejection of the respondent’s candidature for a police post was justified, given his past involvement in a criminal case that was later resolved through a compromise and 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:

Cases:

• Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh [1] (Supreme Court of India): This case established that even if a candidate is acquitted, the Screening Committee can reject their application if the acquittal is not honorable or if the candidate was involved in a serious crime. The Court emphasized that the police force requires individuals of impeccable character.
• State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Parvez Khan [2] (Supreme Court of India): This case followed the principles laid down in Mehar Singh, reiterating that the employer has the right to consider the antecedents and suitability of a candidate, even after an acquittal.
• Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and another [3] (Supreme Court of India): This case further affirmed the principles established in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan, highlighting the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity within the police force.
• Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others [4] (Supreme Court of India): This case dealt with the issue of suppression of information in verification forms. It clarified that even if a truthful disclosure about a concluded case is made, the employer has the right to consider the candidate’s antecedents.
• Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others [5] (Supreme Court of India): This case was distinguished by the Court, as it turned on its specific facts where the appellant was acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the allegations.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the compounding of offenses, and sub-section (8) states that the composition of an offense has the effect of an acquittal.
• Rule 12(3) of the M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1996: This rule states that inclusion of a candidate’s name in the list does not guarantee appointment, and the candidate must be found suitable in all respects.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied heavily on Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh [1], State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Parvez Khan [2], and Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and another [3], emphasizing that a compromise acquittal does not automatically qualify a candidate for police service.
• The Court cited Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others [4] to support the view that even with truthful disclosure of a concluded criminal case, the employer has the right to consider the candidate’s antecedents.
• The Court distinguished Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others [5], stating that it was based on specific facts and did not apply to the present case.
• The Court acknowledged Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the effect of composition of offenses, but clarified that it does not equate to a clean acquittal, especially in the context of police service.
• The Court acknowledged Rule 12(3) of the M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1996, to emphasize that inclusion in the list does not guarantee appointment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity and high standards of the police force. The Court considered several factors that influenced its decision:

• Nature of the Offense: The Court considered the nature of the offense the respondent was involved in, even though it was later compounded.
• Compromise vs. Clean Acquittal: The Court distinguished between a compromise acquittal and a clean acquittal on merit, stating that a compromise acquittal does not guarantee suitability for police service.
• Integrity of Police Force: The Court stressed the need for police personnel to have impeccable character and integrity, given their role in maintaining law and order.
• Employer’s Right to Consider Antecedents: The Court upheld the employer’s right to consider the antecedents and suitability of a candidate, even if they have disclosed past criminal involvement and were later acquitted.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by legal considerations, with a strong emphasis on the need to maintain the integrity of the police force. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal principles and precedents played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court upheld the decision of the police authorities to reject the respondent’s candidature. The Court stated that the decision was not actuated by mala fides and that the employer has the right to consider a candidate’s antecedents, even after an acquittal through compromise. The Court emphasized that a compromise acquittal is not equivalent to a clean acquittal, especially when considering the high standards required for police service.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “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 decision on the question of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A compromise acquittal does not guarantee suitability for a police job.
• Police departments can consider a candidate’s past criminal record, even if the case was resolved through a compromise and acquittal.
• The integrity and high standards of the police force are paramount.
• Employers have the right to consider a candidate’s antecedents, even with truthful disclosure of past criminal involvement.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a compromise acquittal is not equivalent to a clean acquittal on merit, particularly when considering a candidate’s suitability for a position in the police force. This judgment reinforces the principle that police service requires individuals of impeccable character and integrity. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather it is a reaffirmation of the existing legal principles as laid down in the cases of Mehar Singh [1], Parvez Khan [2] and Pradeep Kumar [3].

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar reinforces the principle that a compromise acquittal does not automatically qualify a candidate for police service. The Court upheld the police department’s decision to reject the candidate, emphasizing the need for high standards of integrity within the police force. This judgment underscores that employers can consider a candidate’s past criminal record, even if the case was resolved through a compromise and acquittal, and that such an acquittal is not the same as a clean acquittal on merit.