The Supreme Court enunciated that the Director General is the highest functionary in the police hierarchy, hence, the best judge to ascertain the suitability of the Petitioner for induction into the police force was the Director General himself. The Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Director General of Police regarding the cancellation of the appointment of Petitioner as a constable in the police force.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner (Appellant) participated in the selection process for the post of constable in 2008-2009 and an appointment letter was issued to him. The Petitioner then underwent the 9 months BRTC course.
Thereafter, 10 slips of newly recruited constables were sent to the Director of the Fingerprint Bureau for record and reference purposes. It was recorded that the Petitioner was involved in a case under Section 379 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 6 of the Forest Act. The case was still pending.
Thereafter, cancellation for the selection of the Petitioner was sought. During the inquiry, it was found that the Petitioner lied about his address to get a clean chit and further consciously concealed the information about his involvement in the case. Hence, his appointment was cancelled.
A writ petition was preferred against the said cancellation. Meanwhile, the Petitioner was acquitted in the abovementioned criminal case. Later, the Director General of Police passed an order stating that the Petitioner was found unsuitable for the post of the constable. Against this, a writ petition was preferred which was dismissed by the single bench. Then appeal was preferred before the division bench which was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the acquittal in the said criminal case was to be treated as an honourable acquittal and further there was no basis to presume the criminal background of the Appellant as he was acquitted.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the Appellant was acquitted because of contradictory evidence brought on record and also because the Investigating Officer was not examined. A benefit of the doubt was given and hence, the Appellant was acquitted.
The Top Court examined the phrase “honourable acquittal” and opined that mere acquittal cannot entitle an employee to reinstatement in service. The acquittal has to be honourable. It was further remarked that this expression is not defined anywhere in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Analyzing several judicial precedents, the Apex Court opined that the standard of conduct in the police force has always been emphasized. Since the Director General is the highest functionary in the police hierarchy, the Bench was of the view that the best judge to ascertain the suitability of the Petitioner for induction into the police force was the Director General himself. Therefore, the Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Director General of the Police.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the reasons, the Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Case No: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 678 of 2021
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 152 SC
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Vikram Hegde
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Shailesh Madiyal
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
