Summary
The Supreme Court restored rejection of a police-constable candidate after the Screening Committee assessed his involvement in a serious criminal case ending in benefit-of-doubt acquittal. Such acquittal did not make appointment automatic, and the Committee’s suitability assessment on these facts warranted no interference.
Issues
- Whether benefit-of-doubt acquittal required appointment despite the Screening Committee’s adverse suitability assessment.
Held
- The acquittal followed witnesses turning hostile and benefit of doubt, rather than a finding that the prosecution case was false. Appointment therefore did not follow as a matter of course. (¶ 8)
- The serious allegation involved impersonating a police officer and robbery-related offences. Against that background, the Committee’s conclusion that the candidate was unsuitable for a disciplined police force was appropriate. (¶¶ 9, 13–14)
- Where acquittal rests on benefit of doubt or a technical reason, the employer may assess all relevant antecedent facts for appointment or continued service. The cited decision in Joginder Singh was distinguishable because it did not involve a comparable Committee assessment of the material. (¶ 13–14)
Result
State appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside and Single Judge judgment dismissing the writ petition restored. No order as to costs; pending applications disposed of.