Summary
A constable appointed to the Jammu and Kashmir Police in 2009 was found through fingerprint records to be an accused in a pending 2007 theft case he had not disclosed, and his appointment was cancelled; after his acquittal on benefit of doubt the High Court directed reconsideration, whereupon the Director General of Police found him unsuitable for a disciplined force, a decision upheld by the Single Judge and Division Bench. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition: an acquittal where the investigating officer was not examined and the evidence was contradictory is not an honourable acquittal, mere acquittal confers no right to appointment, and under Mehar Singh, Pradeep Kumar and Avtar Singh the employer may still assess antecedents, the decision of the highest police functionary being final unless mala fide.
Issues
- Whether a candidate for the police force whose appointment was cancelled for a concealed pending criminal case can compel reinstatement after being acquitted on benefit of doubt, when the Director General of Police has found him unsuitable on account of his criminal background.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe power under Article 136 is special and extraordinary, to be exercised in rare cases; the High Court having dealt elaborately with every aspect and the Director General being the best judge of suitability for induction into the force, no infirmity warranted interference. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Section 379 RPC and Section 6 of the Forest Act, Ranbir Penal Code and Jammu and Kashmir Forest ActThe petitioner was tried for theft of timber and acquitted because the investigating officer was not examined, the seizure was not proved and the evidence was contradictory; such an acquittal on benefit of doubt is not an honourable acquittal. (¶¶ 2, 7, 8)
Held
- The expressions 'honourable acquittal' and 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code and are judicial coinages; an accused can be said to be honourably acquitted only where the prosecution miserably fails after full consideration of its evidence. Following Mehar Singh, Bhopal Singh Panchal, R.P. Kapur and Pradeep Kumar, acquittal is not conclusive of suitability, a candidate for a disciplined force must be of impeccable character, and stricter norms apply at the point of entry; the Screening Committee's or competent authority's decision is final unless mala fide. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Under Avtar Singh, even where a concluded criminal case is truthfully declared the employer retains the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint; here the petitioner had concealed his involvement and given a different village address at verification, and the Director General's assessment of unsuitability could not be questioned. (¶¶ 2, 13, 14)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; Jammu and Kashmir High Court Division Bench judgment dated 09.08.2019 in LPASW No. 71 of 2018, upholding the Director General of Police's order dated 31.07.2017 finding the petitioner unsuitable for the post of constable, left undisturbed.