Summary
The Supreme Court upheld rejection of a police-constable candidate despite his truthful disclosure of a criminal case ending in acquittal. The acquittal followed a settlement and hostile witnesses in serious, non-compoundable allegations concerning a minor, and was not a clean exoneration for assessing employment suitability. Disclosure and acquittal did not compel appointment. The State’s considered suitability decision showed neither arbitrariness nor mala fides warranting judicial interference.
Issues
- Whether truthful disclosure and acquittal entitled the candidate to appointment as a police constable.
- Whether the State’s assessment of the circumstances of acquittal justified rejection of candidature.
Held
- Truthful disclosure fulfils the candidate’s disclosure obligation but does not compel appointment. The employer may assess antecedents, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of acquittal and the requirements of the post; suitability cannot be determined through a single inflexible rule. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Here one charge was compounded after settlement and acquittal on the non-compoundable charges followed the complainant and other witnesses turning hostile. For the employment assessment, this was not a clean acquittal, and the seriousness and moral-turpitude aspect of the allegations remained relevant to suitability. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.2, 16, 17)
- Police appointments warrant a stringent standard of character because the duties include law enforcement, handling arms, apprehending suspects and protecting the public. Even a single case ending in benefit-of-doubt acquittal may justify rejection after consideration of the relevant circumstances; that is not an automatic rule disqualifying every acquitted candidate. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The State judiciously considered the relevant factors and its decision was neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The Division Bench wrongly relied on candid disclosure and the absence of other pending cases to require fresh consideration. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Result
State’s appeal allowed. Division Bench judgment set aside and Single Judge’s judgment sustaining the finding of unfitness restored. Parties to bear their own costs.