Supreme Court Upholds Screening Committee’s Decision to Deny Constable Posts to Candidates with Criminal Backgrounds: Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) INSC 12

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 8, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 12
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Can a police force reject candidates for a constable position, even after they’ve been acquitted in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment, focusing on the importance of integrity and character within the police force. The court examined whether a Screening Committee’s decision to deny employment to candidates with criminal backgrounds, despite their acquittals, was justified. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, with Justice Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 2010, the Union Territory of Chandigarh Police issued an advertisement to fill 1200 temporary constable positions. The recruitment process included a physical efficiency test, a physical measurement test, a written test, and an interview. Several candidates, including the respondents in this case, successfully cleared these stages. However, their employment was denied because they had been involved in criminal cases, despite being acquitted by the trial court. The cases were referred to a Screening Committee, which found the candidates unsuitable for the constable positions. The respondents had been prosecuted for offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court acquitted them, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondents, aggrieved by the denial of employment, filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT allowed the OA on July 24, 2012, setting aside the Screening Committee’s orders and directing the authorities to consider the respondents for appointment. The State then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed for all respondents except Ombir. The High Court held that there was no concealment of criminal antecedents by the respondents. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following guidelines from Standing Order No. 44 of 2010 issued by the Inspector General of Police, UT Chandigarh:
✓ Guideline 2(A)(a): States that if a candidate does not disclose their involvement in a criminal case in the attestation form, their candidature will be cancelled.
✓ Guideline 2(A)(b): States that if a candidate discloses their involvement in a criminal case, the case will be referred to a Screening Committee to assess their suitability, irrespective of whether the case is under investigation, trial, or has resulted in conviction or acquittal.

Arguments

The appellants argued that:

• Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to appointment, and the appointing authority can still find the person unfit.
• The respondents were not “honourably acquitted,” but were acquitted based on the benefit of the doubt.
• The post of Constable in the police force requires impeccable integrity and track record.
• The court cannot substitute its own view for the decision of the Screening Committee.

The respondents argued that:

• Their acquittal was an “honourable acquittal” because the case was based on “no evidence.”
• They had disclosed the fact of facing a criminal trial and there was no suppression on their part.
• They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others (2015) 2 SCC 377.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the contention of the respondents that they were honourably acquitted and that they should not be deprived of being appointed to the post of Constable is acceptable?
2. 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598*: The court used this case to define “honourable acquittal” as an acquittal after full consideration of prosecution evidence, where the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges. This definition was used to distinguish the respondents’ acquittals, which were based on the benefit of the doubt.
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685*: The court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of character and integrity in the police force. It highlighted that the Screening Committee can examine the suitability of a candidate even after an acquittal.
R.P. Kapur v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 787*: The court used this case to support the view that departmental proceedings can proceed even if a person is acquitted when the acquittal is other than honourable.
RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541*: The court cited this case to support the view that an acquittal based on benefit of doubt is not an honourable acquittal.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591*: This case was used to reiterate the principle that a candidate for the police service must have impeccable character and integrity.
Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471*: The court referred to this case to emphasize that even if an employee truthfully declares a concluded criminal case, the employer can still consider the antecedents and is not compelled to appoint the candidate.
Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377*: The court distinguished this case, stating that the facts were different and that the acquittal in Joginder Singh was an honourable acquittal based on a finding of innocence, not a benefit of the doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity and high standards of the police force. The court emphasized that individuals with criminal antecedents, even if acquitted, may not be suitable for the police force, especially if the acquittal was not “honourable.” The court also gave weight to the Screening Committee’s assessment and the importance of not substituting the court’s views for those of the committee.

Issue 1: Whether the respondents were honourably acquitted?

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the Screening Committee’s decision?

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the respondents’ claim that their acquittals were “honourable” due to a lack of evidence. However, the court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the distinction between an acquittal based on a lack of evidence and an acquittal where the prosecution’s case fails miserably. The court prioritized maintaining the integrity of the police force and the Screening Committee’s role in assessing candidate suitability.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The police force requires candidates with impeccable character and integrity.
• Acquittal based on benefit of doubt is not equivalent to an honourable acquittal.
• The Screening Committee’s decision should be respected unless it is mala fide.
• The court should not substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the concerned post.”
• “Unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case.”
• “The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The decision was unanimous.

The court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the legal precedents and the need to maintain the high standards of the police force. The court applied the principles established in previous cases to the specific facts of this case.

The decision has potential implications for future cases involving recruitment to the police force and other disciplined services. It reinforces that the employer has the right to consider the antecedents of a candidate, even if they have been acquitted in a criminal case.

The court did not introduce any new legal doctrines or principles. It reaffirmed the existing principles related to the importance of character and integrity in the police force and the role of the Screening Committee.

Key Takeaways

• Acquittal in a criminal case does not guarantee appointment to a police force or other disciplined services.
• The employer has the right to consider the antecedents of a candidate, even if they have been acquitted.
• The Screening Committee’s decision should be respected unless it is mala fide.
• The court will not substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee.
• Candidates for the police force must have impeccable character and integrity.

This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future recruitment processes for police and other disciplined forces. It reinforces the importance of maintaining high standards and integrity within these services.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the cancellation of candidature of the respondents.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to appointment in the police force, especially if the acquittal is based on the benefit of the doubt and not an “honourable acquittal.” The judgment reinforces the importance of the Screening Committee’s role and the need for impeccable character in the police force. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the court clarified the application of existing principles to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Screening Committee to deny constable posts to candidates with criminal backgrounds, even though they were acquitted. The court emphasized the importance of integrity and character in the police force and held that the Screening Committee’s decision was valid and should not be overruled. The court clarified that an acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt is not equivalent to an “honourable acquittal.”