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 12

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

Can a police force reject candidates for constable positions even after they’ve been acquitted in criminal cases? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the balance between individual rights and the need for a disciplined police force. The core issue was whether a Screening Committee could deny employment to candidates who had disclosed their involvement in criminal cases, despite their subsequent acquittal. 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

The Chandigarh Police issued an advertisement on 14 March 2010, seeking to fill 1200 temporary constable positions. The recruitment process included a Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Measurement Test, written test, and interview. Several candidates, including the respondents in this case, were successful in these tests. However, the Screening Committee denied them employment because they had been involved in criminal cases, even though they were acquitted by the trial court. The respondents had disclosed their involvement in criminal cases during the application process.

The respondents were prosecuted for offences under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. They were acquitted by the trial court on 29 January 2010, with the benefit of doubt. The Screening Committee, headed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, determined that they were not suitable for appointment as constables in the Chandigarh Police.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents, aggrieved by the Screening Committee’s decision, filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT allowed the OA on 24 July 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, holding that there was no concealment of criminal antecedents. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The recruitment process was governed by guidelines and standing orders issued by the Chandigarh Police. Guideline No. 2(A)(a) states that if a candidate does not disclose their involvement in a criminal case, their candidature will be cancelled. Guideline No. 2(A)(b) states that if a candidate discloses involvement in a criminal case, the case will be referred to a Screening Committee to assess suitability, regardless of the case’s status (investigation, trial, conviction, or acquittal). Standing Order No. 44 of 2010, issued by the Inspector General of Police, UT Chandigarh, also outlines these guidelines.

The Supreme Court also referred to previous judgments, including:

• Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598, which discussed the meaning of “honourable acquittal.”
• Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, which emphasized the importance of character and integrity in the police force.
• State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591, which reiterated the principle laid down in Mehar Singh.
• Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471, which discussed the implications of suppressing or misrepresenting information regarding criminal cases.

The Court emphasized that the police force requires candidates of good character and integrity. The court also stated that the expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame” and “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, and are coined by judicial pronouncements. The court also observed that it is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression “honourably acquitted”.

Arguments

Appellant (State) Arguments:

• The State argued that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to appointment.
• The State contended that the appointing authority can still find a person unfit for a post, especially in a disciplined force like the police.
• The State submitted that the respondents were not “honourably acquitted” but were given the “benefit of doubt”.
• The State argued that the post of Constable requires impeccable integrity, a good track record, and suitability.
• The State asserted that the court cannot substitute its view for the decision of the Screening Committee.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that their acquittal was a case of “no evidence” and should be considered an “honourable acquittal”.
• They contended that they had disclosed their criminal history while applying for the job and did not suppress any information.
• The respondents relied on the judgment in Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others (2015) 2 SCC 377, where the court held that the acquittal was honourable.

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

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the decision of the Screening Committee. The Court held that the Screening Committee had rightly determined that the respondents were not suitable for the post of Constable in the Chandigarh Police. The court stated that the Screening Committee’s decision must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.

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” and stated that it is when the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges levelled against the accused.
• 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 and also stated that the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.
• State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591*: The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Mehar Singh case.
• Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471*: The Court relied on this case to state that even if 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.
• Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377*: The Court distinguished the case stating that the acquittal in that case was considered honourable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a disciplined police force with candidates of impeccable character and integrity. The Court noted that the Screening Committee’s decision must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. The Court also emphasized that it is important to maintain the integrity and high standard of the police force and the Screening Committee may decline to take cognizance of a compromise, if it appears to it to be dubious.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles and precedents regarding the suitability of candidates for the police force. The court emphasized the need for a disciplined police force and the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity. The court also stated that the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.

The Court considered and rejected the argument that the respondents’ acquittal was honourable, emphasizing that the acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt, not a complete exoneration. The Court also considered the argument that the High Court was right in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee, but rejected it, stating that the Screening Committee’s decision must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The acquittal was not an “honourable acquittal” but was based on the benefit of doubt.
• The police force requires candidates with impeccable character and integrity.
• The Screening Committee’s decision must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.
• The Court cannot 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.”
• “Entering into the police service required a candidate to be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents.”
• “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 judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, with Justice Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Key Takeaways

• Acquittal in a criminal case does not guarantee appointment to a police force.
• The Screening Committee has the authority to assess the suitability of candidates, even if they have been acquitted.
• Candidates for police positions must have impeccable character and integrity.
• The decision of the Screening Committee is final unless it is mala fide.
• A candidate who has been acquitted with the benefit of doubt is not considered to be honourably acquitted.

The judgment has significant implications for candidates with criminal histories seeking employment in the police force. It reinforces the importance of integrity and character in the police force and clarifies that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt is not sufficient for appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to appointment in a disciplined force like the police. The Screening Committee has the authority to assess the suitability of candidates, even if they have been acquitted. This case clarifies that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt is not sufficient for appointment. The judgment reinforces the importance of integrity and character in the police force and does not change any previous position of law, but rather reiterates the same.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Screening Committee’s decision to deny constable positions to candidates with criminal histories, even after their acquittal. The Court emphasized the importance of integrity and character in the police force and clarified that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt is not equivalent to an honourable acquittal. The judgment reinforces the authority of the Screening Committee in assessing the suitability of candidates for police positions.