On 10th May 2021, the High Court of Sikkim in the case of Mr. Tara Prasad Sharma v. The State of Sikkim comprising of Chief Justice of Sikkim (Justice J.K. MAHESHWARI) expounds that the petitioner is not entitled to hold the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate because his acquittal is giving benefit of doubt.
Factual Background of the Case
That an advertisement was issued by the High Court of Sikkim inviting applications for the three vacant posts of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in the Cadre of Sikkim Judicial Service. The Petitioner after the selection process was recommended for appointment to the State Government for the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate.
After appointment, the Joint Secretary, (DoPART), Government of Sikkim, informed to the Registrar General, High Court of Sikkim that one of the selected candidates, Shri Tara Prasad Sharma (petitioner) was found involved in Police Case u/s 420/468/471 of IPC, though acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate.
The Full Court in its Meeting taking into consideration the acquittal of the petitioner, after examining all materials, unanimously resolved that the conduct of the petitioner is not free from the element of doubt, thus, he may not be given the assignment of administration of justice and recommended to withdraw the previous resolution with respect to appointment of the petitioner to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate.
Petitioner Submissions
The Petitioner contends before the Court that
- he was acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Section 468 of the IPC
- On receiving the offer of appointment letter, he submitted his attestation form specifying the details of the criminal case and its result.
- it is not a case of concealment of material facts, as he has disclosed the details of criminal case and its result acquitting him in the attestation form.
- being candidate of merit, he had rightly been appointed by the State Government. Merely registering a criminal case in which he was acquitted by the Court, may not debar him from the appointment as Civil Judge.
Respondent Submissions
Respondent in its submissions contends before the Court that,
- column 11 of the application form, other relevant information which applicant deems fit were required to be furnished. In the said column, petitioner has not furnished the information regarding registration of the criminal case and his acquittal.
- before the Selection Committee information regarding criminal case has not been furnished by the petitioner
- it is a case in which petitioner was not acquitted honourably but acquitted giving benefit of doubt.
Issues before the Court
- Whether acquittal vide judgment dated 30.04.2016 in a criminal case bearing G.R. Case No. 644/2013 may lead to the conclusion that petitioner is entitled to continue on the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate?
- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Full Court resolution of the High Court of Sikkim dated 11.08.2017 withdrawing the previous recommendations of appointment of the petitioner from the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate is justified or can it be interfered with in the facts of the case in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Court Findings and Observation
Court in its findings considering the first issue stated that the,
The issue regarding „honourable acquittal‟, „acquitted of blame‟ and „fully acquitted‟ are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code. It has been developed by judicial pronouncements.
In view of the forgoing legal position, the expression „honourably acquitted‟ may lead to the conclusion when all the material evidence has been duly considered, even charge as alleged against the accused could not prove holding him guilty. Otherwise on account of technical flow or due to non-production of important witnesses or the witnesses turned hostile or due to settlement between the parties or otherwise prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt may not come within the purview of „honourably acquitted‟ and such acquittal is otherwise than “honourable” to which the proceedings may be followed. The discretion of such proceedings would lay on the appointing authority to take decision looking to the nature of job and suitability of propriety and probity of the candidate.
Court further in its observation stated that the,
On analyzing the case of prosecution and the reason of acquittal as recorded vide judgment dated 30.04.2016, it is luculent like a day light that petitioner has not been honourably acquitted but his acquittal is giving benefit of doubt. In the light of the legal and factual position as discussed hereinabove, as the acquittal of petitioner is other than honourable, the proceedings of the Department may follow to judge his suitability looking to the credibility of the post meaning thereby the petitioner would not ipso facto entitled to continue to hold the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate merely because he was acquitted.
Court answering the Second issues stated that the,
the Full Court unanimously was of the opinion that the acquittal of the petitioner was giving him benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Full Court has examined all the material and of the view that the conduct of the petitioner is not free from an element of doubt, therefore, he may not be given the assignment relating to administration of justice. Thus, resolved to withdraw the recommendation made earlier in favour of the petitioner on 05.07.2017 for his appointment as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. It was further resolved that the next candidate in the Merit List, Mr. Jabyang Dorjee Sherpa (Respondent No.4) be recommended for appointment on the said post. Thus, it is clear that withdrawal of the previous recommendation is because his acquittal other than honourable, and his conduct was found under cloud to assign the work of judicial administration, or as a Judge. From the above and in conspectus of undisputed fact that High Court of Sikkim is the only competent to make the recommendation for appointment to the post of Civil Judge, but the discretion has not exercised in favour of petitioner looking to the conduct and probity of petitioner for holding the post of Judicial Officer.
Thus, resolution passed by the Full Court is on consideration of the character of the petitioner which was not found impeccable and suited to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. In such a case, High Court cannnot be compelled to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus and to grant the relief as prayed by petitioner.
Court Judgment
The Court in its judgment stated that the petitioner is meritless and not entitled to the relief as prayed.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
