UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. versus PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER on 8 January 2018

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 1 S.C.R.

A

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

v.

PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER

B

(Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2018)

JANAURY 08, 2018

[R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Service law:

C

Appointment – Disciplined force – Post of constable – Whetherthe candidature of respondents who had disclosed their involvementin the criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled bythe Screening Committee on the ground that they are not suitablefor the post – Held: Acquittal in a criminal case does notDautomatically entitle candidate for appointment – It is open to theemployer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he issuitable for appointment to the post – While deciding whether aperson involved in a criminal case acquitted or discharged shouldbe appointed to a post in a police force, the nature of offence inwhich he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal orEonly an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turninghostile or flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be consideredby the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether thecandidate is suitable for the post – The decision of the ScreeningCommittee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fideF– Object of screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccablecharacter enters police force – In the case in hand, there is nothingto suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide– Therefore, decision of the Screening Committee that therespondents were not suitable for being appointed to the post ofConstable did not call for interference – Administrative law.

G

Appointment – Disciplined force – Acquittal in criminal case– Claim for appointment – Held: The acquittal in a criminal case isnot conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the concernedpost – If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always beinferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminalHantecedents.

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v.PRADEEP KUMAR

Administrative law – Administrative decision – Appointment– Disciplined force – Whether the court can substitute its views forthe decision taken by the Screening Committee – Held: Object ofscreening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable characterenters police force – The court cannot substitute its views for thedecision of the Screening Committee.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD:1. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannotalways be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had nocriminal antecedents. Unless it is an honourable acquittal, thecandidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. [Para 10][118-C]

Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S.Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598 : [2012] 11 SCR 174 –relied on.

2. Entering into the police service required a candidate tobe of good character, integrity and clean antecedents.[Para11][118-G-H]

Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v.Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432;State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Parvez Khan(2015) 2 SCC 591; Avtar Singh v. Union of India andOthers (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 – reliedon.

3.1 A candidate to be recruited to the police service mustbe of impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminalantecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted ordischarged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourablyacquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the ScreeningCommittee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be malafide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to theimportance of the trust repose in it and must examine thecandidate with utmost character. [Para 13][122-C-D]

3.2 The Screening Committee examined each and everycase of the respondents and reasonings for their acquittal andtaken the decision. While deciding whether a person involved ina criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2018] 1 S.C.R.

Aappointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which heis involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only anextension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostileand flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be consideredby the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether thecandidate is suitable for the post. The Screening CommitteeBexamined each and every case and reasonings for their acquittaland took decision that the respondents are not suitable for thepost of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followedis as per guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is toensure that only persons with impeccable character enters policeCforce. While so, the court cannot substitute its views for thedecision of the Screening Committee. In the case in hand, thereis nothing to suggest that the decision of the ScreeningCommittee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committeethat the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to thepost of Constable does not call for interference. The TribunalDand the High Court, erred in setting aside the decision of theScreening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to beset aside. [Paras 15, 17][124-D-F; 125-C]

Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of ChandigarhandOthers (2015) 2 SCC 377 : [2014] 11 SCR 155 – heldEinapplicable.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 67 of G2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2016 by the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 3532 of 2013 (O&M)

WITH

HC. A. Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 2018.

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v.PRADEEP KUMAR

Nikhil Goel, Ms. Naveen Goel, Ashutosh Ghade, Advs. for theAppellants.

Mukesh K. Giri, Sudhir Naagar, Ankit Khera, Dushyant Parashar,Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted

2. The question involved in these appeals is whether thecandidature of the respondents who had disclosed their involvement inthe criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled by theScreening Committee on the ground that they are not suitable for thepost of constable in Chandigarh Police and whether the court cansubstitute its views for the decision taken by the Screening Committee.Since the facts and issues are almost identical in all these appeals, theywere heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.For convenience, we would deal with the facts in appeal arising out ofSLP(C) No. 20750 of 2016

3. On 14.03.2010, an advertisement was issued by UT ChandigarhPolice through its Deputy Inspector General of Police inviting applicationsfrom the candidates to fill up 1200 temporary posts of Constable(Executive) in Chandigarh Police with essential qualification as prescribedin the advertisement with instructions for filling online application form.The recruitment was to be done as per guidelines thereon as well asstanding order governing the recruitment of constables. GuidelineNo.2(A)(a) deals with the circumstances when the candidate does notdisclose the factum of his involvement in the attestation form and thesame is found subsequently from the verification report. The candidatureof such candidates will be cancelled as per aforesaid guideline withoutmaking any reference to any Committee for further probe into the conductof the candidate. In Guideline No.2(A)(b), it is prescribed that if acandidate has disclosed his involvement in some criminal case in theattestation form, then such case will be referred to Screening Committeeto assess his suitability for appointment in Chandigarh Police irrespectiveof the fact that the case is under investigation, trial or resulted in convictionor acquittal.

4. Respondents were declared successful in the recruitment forthe post of Constable (Executive) in Chandigarh Police after clearingthe Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Measurement Test, written test A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Aand interview. However, the respondents were denied the employmenton the ground that the respondents had been prosecuted in a criminaltrial for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 506 read withSection 34 IPC and were acquitted by the trial court vide judgmentdated 29.01.2010 giving them benefit of doubt. The case was referredto the Committee headed by Senior Superintendent of Police and it wasBfound that the respondents were not suitable for appointment asConstables in the Chandigarh Police.

5. Aggrieved, respondents filed OA before CAT. CAT vide orderdated 24.07.2012 allowed the OA and set aside the orders of the ScreeningCommittee and directed the competent authority to consider the namesCof the respondents for appointment to the post of Constable. The Statefiled writ petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed forall the respondents except Ombir holding that there was no concealmentof criminal antecedents. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred theseappeals.D

6. Contention of the appellant is that acquittal of a person doesnot entitle him to be appointed as a matter of right and the appointingauthority may still find such a person unfit to be appointed to the post. Itwas urged by the appellant that even though the respondents wereacquitted in the criminal case, the appointment of the respondents to theEpost of Constable in Chandigarh police which is a disciplined force, wasfound not desirable by the appointing authority. It was submitted thatthe respondents were not honourably acquitted of the offences and theacquittal was only based on the extension of benefit of doubt. Contentionof the appellant is that the post of Constable in disciplinary force demandsan impeccable integrity and track record besides good character andFsuitability. Further contention is that the court cannot overreach thejurisdiction of the Screening Committee by substituting its own view inthe decision of the said Committee and hence, the impugned judgmentof the High Court and the Tribunal is not sustainable.

7. Per contra, contention of the respondents is that the criminalGcase against the respondents was a case of ‘no evidence’ and theacquittal of the respondents is an honourable acquittal and the samecannot be termed to be the case of ‘benefit of doubt’. Moreover,respondents had fairly disclosed the factum of facing criminal trial bygiving complete details while applying for the job and there was noHsuppression on the part of the respondents. On behalf of the respondents,

much reliance was placed upon Joginder Singh v. Union Territory ofChandigarh and others (2015) 2 SCC 377.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid rival contentions urged on behalfof both the parties, the following points arise for consideration:-

(i) Whether the contention of respondents that they werehonourably acquitted and that they should not be deprived ofbeing appointed to the post of Constable is acceptable?

(ii) Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the decisionof the Screening Committee and directing the authorities toconsider the respondents to the post of Constable in thedisciplined police force?

9. On 23.06.2010, the Inspector General of police, UT Chandigarhissued Standing Order No.44 of 2010 laying down the guidelines toconsider cases of candidates selected in Chandigarh Police on havingfound involvement in criminal cases in the past. This standing order dealswith the cases of candidates before issuance of appointment and afterissuance of appointment and joining. Relevant portion of the saidGuidelines reads as under:- “GUIDELINES

(A) CASES BEFORE ISSUE OF APPOINTMENT

(a) The candidature will be cancelled in case the candidatedoes not disclose the fact of his involvement and/or arrestin criminal case(s), complaint case(s), preventiveproceedings etc. in the attestation form and the fact issubsequently found out from any verification report receivedfrom the District authorities or for any/other source.

(b) If a candidate has disclosed his involvement and/or arrestin criminal cases(s), complaint case(s), preventiveproceedings etc. the case will be referred to the ScreeningCommittee to assess his suitability for appointment inChandigarh Police irrespective of the fact that the case isunder investigation, trial or decided in conviction or acquittal.

.........”

In Guideline 2(A)(b), it is prescribed that if a candidate hasdisclosed his involvement in some criminal case in the attestation form A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athen such case will be referred to Screening Committee to assess hissuitability for appointment in Chandigarh Police irrespective of the factthat the case is under investigation, trial or decided in conviction oracquittal. In the present case, in all the cases of respondents, the aforesaidsituation arises. On noticing the acquittal of the candidates, the cases ofrespondents were referred to Screening Committee. The ScreeningBCommittee carefully examined the cases of the respondents and thereasonings for their acquittal and the candidature of the respondentswere rejected finding them not suitable.

10. The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of thesuitability of the candidates in the concerned post. If a person is acquittedCor discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involvedor he had no criminal antecedents. Unless it is an honourable acquittal,the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. What is honourableacquittal, was considered by this Court in Deputy Inspector Generalof Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram(2013) 1 SCC 598, in whichDthis Court held as under:- “24. The meaning of the expression “honourable acquittal” cameup for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal SinghPanchal (1994) 1 SCC 541. In that case, this Court has consideredthe impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittalEby a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context,this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employeeto reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to behonourable. The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquittedof blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of CriminalProcedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicialFpronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meantby the expression “honourably acquitted”. When the accused isacquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and thatthe prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelledagainst the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused wasGhonourably acquitted.”

11. Entering into the police service required a candidate to be ofgood character, integrity and clean antecedents. In Commissioner ofPolice, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh(2013) 7 SCC 685,the respondent was acquitted based on the compromise. This CourtHheld that even though acquittal was based on compromise, it is still open to the Screening Committee to examine the suitability of the candidateand take a decision. Emphasizing upon the importance of character andintegrity required for joining police force/discipline force, in Mehar Singhcase, this Court held as under:-

“23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that theScreening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involvedin grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even ifthey are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal ordischarge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The ScreeningCommittee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of acandidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some seriousflaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result ofmaterial witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officersof the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whetherthe acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similaractivities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, tothe post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have toconsider the nature and extent of such person’s involvement inthe crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worseningthe law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion,this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit anyinterference from this Court as its object appears to be to ensurethat only persons with impeccable character enter the police force.

24. We find no substance in the contention that by cancelling therespondents’ candidature, the Screening Committee hasoverreached the judgments of the criminal court. We are awarethat the question of co-relation between a criminal case and adepartmental enquiry does not directly arise here, but, supportcan be drawn from the principles laid down by this Court inconnection with it because the issue involved is somewhat identical,namely, whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to workin the department. While the standard of proof in a criminal caseis the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmentalproceeding is preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminalcases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile. Suchacquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefitof doubt would not stand on a par with a clean acquittal on meritafter a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

witnesses being won over. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India AIR1964 SC 787 this Court has taken a view that departmentalproceedings can proceed even though a person is acquitted whenthe acquittal is other than honourable.

25. The expression “honourable acquittal” was considered bythis Court in S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598. In that case thisCourt was concerned with a situation where disciplinaryproceedings were initiated against a police officer. Criminal casewas pending against him under Section 509 IPC and under Section4 of the Eve-Teasing Act. He was acquitted in that case becauseof the non-examination of key witnesses. There was a seriousflaw in the conduct of the criminal case. Two material witnessesturned hostile. Referring to the judgment of this Court in RBI v.Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541, where in somewhatsimilar fact situation, this Court upheld a bank’s action of refusingto reinstate an employee in service on the ground that in thecriminal case he was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt and,therefore, it was not an honourable acquittal, this Court held thatthe High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishmentimposed in the departmental proceedings. This Court observedthat the expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted ofblame” and “fully exonerated” are unknown to the CriminalProcedure Code or the Penal Code. They are coined by judicialpronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant by theexpression “honourably acquitted”. This Court expressed thatwhen the accused is acquitted after full consideration of theprosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove thecharges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said thatthe accused was honourably acquitted.

................

33. So far as respondent Mehar Singh is concerned, his caseappears to have been compromised. It was urged that acquittalrecorded pursuant to a compromise should not be treated as adisqualification because that will frustrate the purpose of the LegalServices Authorities Act, 1987. We see no merit in this submission.Compromises or settlements have to be encouraged to bring aboutpeaceful and amiable atmosphere in the society by according aquietus to disputes. They have to be encouraged also to reduce arrears of cases and save the litigants from the agony of pendinglitigation. But these considerations cannot be brought in here. Inorder to maintain integrity and high standard of police force, theScreening Committee may decline to take cognizance of acompromise, if it appears to it to be dubious. The ScreeningCommittee cannot be faulted for that.

...............

35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the greatresponsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in thesociety. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must beworthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the policeforce must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must haveimpeccable character and integrity. A person having criminalantecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted ordischarged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge orderwill have to be examined to see whether he has been completelyexonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking tothe life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the policeforce. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task oftaking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee.The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as finalunless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the policeforce is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in awayward manner by misusing power are in public domain andare a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force hastaken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute theimportance and efficacy of a mechanism like the ScreeningCommittee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that personswho are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force.At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to theimportance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidateswith an even hand.”

The same principle was reiterated in State of Madhya Pradeshand Others v. Parvez Khan(2015) 2 SCC 591.

12. While considering the question of suppression of relevantinformation or false information in regard to criminal prosecution, arrestor pendency of criminal case(s) against the candidate, in Avtar Singh v.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

AUnion of India and Others(2016) 8 SCC 471, three-Judges Benchof this Court summarized the conclusion in para (38). As per the saiddecision in para (38.5), “In a case where the employee has madedeclaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employerstill has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelledto appoint the candidate.”

B

13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does notautomatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open tothe employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he issuitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Courtin Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate toCbe recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character andintegrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category.Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he washonourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of theScreening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to beDmala fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importanceof the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmostcharacter.

14. In the case in hand, the details of the criminal cases in whichthe respondents were involved and the reasonings for their acquittal andEthe consideration by the Screening Committee are as under:- F

G

H

123ABCDEFGH

124SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 1 S.C.R.ABC

15. From the above details, we find that the Screening Committeeexamined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings forDtheir acquittal and taken the decision. While deciding whether a personinvolved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should beappointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he isinvolved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension ofbenefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in theEprosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the ScreeningCommittee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable forthe post. As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examinedeach and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took decisionthat the respondents are not suitable for the post of Constable inChandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as per guideline 2(A)(b)Fand object of such screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccablecharacter enters police force. While so, the court cannot substitute itsviews for the decision of the Screening Committee.

16. On behalf of the respondents, much reliance was placedupon Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and OthersG(2015) 2 SCC 377. In the said case, the appellant thereon was chargedunder Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and 307 IPC but acquitted by the trialcourt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelledagainst him since complainant as well as injured eye witnesses failed toidentify the assailants and the complainant had stated that his signaturewas obtained on a blank sheet by the Investigating Officer. The caseH

involved was a family dispute. In such facts and circumstances, thisCourt held that acquittal of appellant Joginder Singh was an honourableacquittal and hence, he should not be denied appointment to the post inquestion. The decision in Joginder Singh case does not advance thecase of the respondents herein.

17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity andhigh standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As heldin Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must betaken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothingto suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide.The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are notsuitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call forinterference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred insetting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugnedjudgment is liable to be set aside.

18. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appealsare allowed. The cancellation of candidature of the respondents is upheld.No costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H