Summary
A meritorious candidate for Police Constable in Madhya Pradesh disclosed in his 2013 verification form that he had been tried under Section 498A IPC. The case arose from a 2001 matrimonial dispute and ended in acquittal in 2006 after a settlement. His candidature was cancelled. A Single Judge ordered his appointment, but the Division Bench, citing Avtar Singh, upheld the employer's right to consider antecedents. The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's order. There was no suppression, and the only charge, arising from a settled matrimonial dispute, ended in acquittal seven years before he applied. Denying appointment on that ground alone was unjustified. Anil Kanwariya was distinguished, since it involved suppression and conviction. Under the principle of no work, no pay, benefits run only from actual appointment.
Issues
- Whether a candidate who truthfully disclosed a past prosecution under Section 498A IPC, arising from a matrimonial dispute and ending in acquittal on settlement years earlier, could be denied appointment as Police Constable on that ground alone.
Provisions considered
- Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860The only prior prosecution, arising from a matrimonial dispute of 2001 and ending in acquittal in 2006 after settlement, was held an insufficient ground to deny appointment in 2013-14. (¶ 6)
Held
- The appellant disclosed the prosecution in his verification form, so there was no suppression; the case arose from a matrimonial dispute settled out of court, the complainant turned hostile, and he was acquitted seven years before applying. In these peculiar facts he could not be denied appointment solely on that ground. (¶ 6)
- Anil Kanwariya does not apply because there the candidate had suppressed his antecedents and had been convicted; here there was neither suppression nor conviction. (¶ 7)
- On the principle of no work no pay, the appellant is entitled to benefits only from the date of actual appointment, not the 50% back wages the Single Judge had awarded. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-8935 of 2022 partly allowed; the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench judgments dated 10.02.2020 in W.A. No. 723 of 2018 and 04.02.2022 in R.P. No. 672 of 2021 set aside and the Single Judge's order restored to the extent of setting aside the cancellation; the State directed to appoint the appellant as Constable within four weeks, with benefits from actual appointment only; no costs.