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

Date of the Judgment: 08 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 11

Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Can a police force reject candidates for constable positions based on past criminal charges, even if they were acquitted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, examining the powers of a Screening Committee in the recruitment process. The court considered whether the decisions of such committees can be overruled by the courts. This case involves candidates who were acquitted of criminal charges but were still deemed unsuitable for the police force by the Screening Committee. 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

On March 14, 2010, the Chandigarh Police issued an advertisement to fill 1200 temporary constable positions. The advertisement specified the required qualifications and the process for online applications. The recruitment was governed by specific guidelines and standing orders.

The respondents applied and were successful in the Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Measurement Test, written test, and interview. However, they were later denied employment because they had been involved in a criminal trial under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Although they were acquitted by the trial court on January 29, 2010, the acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt. The Screening Committee, headed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, assessed the respondents and found them unsuitable for the constable posts.

Aggrieved by this decision, the respondents filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT ruled in favor of the respondents, setting aside the Screening Committee’s orders and directing the authorities to reconsider them for appointment. The State then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed for all respondents except one, holding that there was no concealment of criminal antecedents. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondents, after being denied employment, filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT set aside the orders of the Screening Committee and directed the authorities to reconsider the respondents for appointment as constables. The CAT’s decision was based on its view that the respondents’ acquittals should have been considered sufficient for appointment.

The State then filed a writ petition before the High Court against the CAT’s order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition for all respondents except one, holding that there was no concealment of criminal antecedents by the candidates. The High Court’s decision was based on the fact that the candidates had disclosed their criminal history in their application forms. The State, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by Standing Order No. 44 of 2010 issued by the Inspector General of Police, UT Chandigarh, which outlines the guidelines for considering candidates with past criminal involvement. Guideline 2(A)(a) states that if a candidate does not disclose their involvement in a criminal case, their candidature will be cancelled. Guideline 2(A)(b) specifies that if a candidate discloses their involvement in a criminal case, the case will be referred to a Screening Committee to assess their suitability, regardless of whether the case is under investigation, trial, or has resulted in conviction or acquittal.

The relevant portion of the guidelines is as follows:

“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 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.”

Arguments

Appellant (State) Arguments:

• The State argued that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to appointment, especially in a disciplined force like the police.
• The State contended that the Screening Committee has the authority to assess the suitability of candidates, and the courts should not substitute their judgment for the committee’s decision.
• The State submitted that the respondents were not “honourably acquitted” but were given the benefit of doubt, which is not the same as a clean acquittal.
• The State emphasized that the post of Constable requires impeccable integrity, a clean track record, and good character.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that their acquittals were “honourable” and not merely based on the benefit of doubt.
• They contended that they had disclosed their criminal history when applying for the job, and there was no suppression of facts.
• The respondents relied on the case of Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others (2015) 2 SCC 377, arguing that their acquittals should be considered honorable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 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?
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

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598*: The court used this case to define “honourable acquittal,” emphasizing that it requires a complete failure of the prosecution to prove charges, not just a benefit of doubt.

✓ Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685*: This case was used to highlight the importance of integrity and character in the police force and to support the Screening Committee’s authority to assess suitability.

✓ State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591*: The court used this case to reiterate that the Screening Committee’s decision is final unless it is mala fide.

✓ Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471*: This case was used to support the view that even if an employee truthfully declares a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider their antecedents.

✓ Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377*: The court distinguished this case, noting that the facts were different and that the acquittal in Joginder Singh was considered honourable due to the specific circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity and high standards of the police force. The court emphasized that the police force is a disciplined organization that requires individuals of impeccable character. The court was also concerned that if people with criminal antecedents are inducted into the police force, it could erode public trust and confidence in the police. The court emphasized that the Screening Committee is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that only suitable candidates are appointed to the police force, and their decision should not be interfered with unless it is mala fide.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that disclosing the criminal history should be sufficient, but rejected them in favor of maintaining the high standards required for the police force. The court’s decision was based on the need to ensure that only individuals with impeccable character are appointed to the police force.

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

• The acquittals were not “honourable” but based on the benefit of doubt.
• The police force requires individuals of impeccable character.
• The Screening Committee is the appropriate body to assess the suitability of candidates.
• The courts should not interfere with the decision of the Screening Committee unless it is mala fide.

“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.”

“The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.”

“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.”

There were no dissenting or concurring opinions. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Acquittal in a criminal case does not guarantee appointment to a government job, especially in disciplined forces like the police.
• The Screening Committee has the authority to assess the suitability of candidates, and their decision is final unless it is proven to be mala fide.
• Candidates must be transparent about their criminal history, but disclosure does not guarantee appointment.
• The standard for “honourable acquittal” is high, requiring a complete failure of the prosecution to prove charges, not merely a benefit of doubt.

This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and character for those who wish to serve in the police force. It also highlights the finality of the Screening Committee’s decision in recruitment matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and upheld the cancellation of the candidature of the respondents. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the decision of the Screening Committee in assessing the suitability of candidates for the police force is final unless it is mala fide. The court clarified that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt is not equivalent to an honourable acquittal and does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment. This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and character for those who wish to serve in the police force, and it supports the authority of the Screening Committee in recruitment matters.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Screening Committee to deny constable posts to candidates who had been acquitted in criminal cases but were not considered to have been honourably acquitted. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity and high standards of the police force and ruled that the Screening Committee’s decision should be final unless it is mala fide. The court set aside the High Court’s judgment and upheld the cancellation of the candidates’ candidature.

Category

• Service Law
  • Recruitment
  • Screening Committee
  • Honourable Acquittal
  • Benefit of Doubt
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Does an acquittal in a criminal case guarantee a government job?

A: No, an acquittal does not automatically guarantee a government job, especially in disciplined forces like the police. The employer can still consider the antecedents of the candidate.

Q: What is the difference between an “honourable acquittal” and an acquittal based on “benefit of doubt”?

A: An “honourable acquittal” occurs when the prosecution fails to prove the charges after a full consideration of evidence. An acquittal based on “benefit of doubt” means the court could not definitively prove the charges, often due to lack of evidence or witnesses turning hostile.

Q: Can the decision of a Screening Committee be challenged?

A: The decision of a Screening Committee is considered final unless it can be proven to be mala fide (i.e., made in bad faith or with malicious intent).

Q: What should I do if I have a criminal history and want to apply for a government job?

A: You must be transparent and disclose your criminal history in your application. However, disclosure does not guarantee appointment, as the employer will still consider your antecedents.

Q: Why is the police force held to such a high standard of integrity?

A: The police force is responsible for maintaining law and order and public trust. Therefore, it is essential that its members have impeccable character and integrity.