Summary
The Supreme Court upheld rejection of a police candidate on character and suitability grounds despite truthful disclosure of a criminal case and subsequent acquittal through compromise. Disclosure did not compel appointment; the employer could assess the job, charges and nature of the acquittal. The rejection disclosed no mala fides or other infirmity. The High Court’s appointment directions were set aside and the candidate’s writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether truthful disclosure and a compromise acquittal compelled appointment to the police service.
- Whether the employer’s adverse suitability assessment warranted judicial interference.
Held
- Truthful disclosure satisfies the information requirement but does not foreclose assessment of antecedents. An employer may consider the post’s duties, the seriousness of the charges and whether acquittal was on merits, by benefit of doubt or through composition. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- The criminal case was pending when the candidate applied and was compounded only after he disclosed it. The compromise acquittal did not oblige the employer to accept his suitability for police service. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 15)
- The decision relied on for a contrary result turned on its individual facts and did not displace the governing line of police-suitability decisions. (¶ 16)
- There was no material showing mala fides or another defect in the rejection. The suitability decision was upheld, both High Court decisions set aside and the writ petition dismissed. (¶ 17)
Result
State appeal allowed without costs. Single Judge and Division Bench decisions set aside; candidate’s writ petition dismissed and rejection of candidature upheld.