On Wednesday, the Supreme Court clarified whether mere 'acquittal' is sufficient to secure a job which requires service from the recruite.
Clarifying on Honourable Acquittal and Acquittal on benefit of doubt, a Bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice JK Maheshwari dealt with the development of terms such as ‘honourable acquittal’, ‘acquitted of blame’ and ‘fully acquitted’ developed through judicial pronouncements as their traces cannot be found in Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code.
The Court held that if a person is acquitted of an offence involving moral turpitude by giving him the benefit, it would not entitle him to employment, particularly in a disciplined force like Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
CASE BACKGROUND
The Central Govt has filed the present petition against Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision directing CISF to reinstate the respondant for training who failed to pass the Standing Screening Committee's criteria for appointment. The said Committee had examined the respondant's criminal history and found the acquital in case against him as 'dishonorable'
The Respondant herein had been involved in an offence of kidnapping for demand of ransom and an FIR had been registered against him for the same in 2009. Sessions Court acquitted him in the same as the complainant in case, who was abducted, turned hostile in the Court.
Thereafter, the Respondent applied for the constable's post in CISF and got selected.
Appointment Offer for provisional selection was issued to him subject to some condition provided in the agreement form. He was required to furnish the documents including attestation forms, certificate of character, character and antecedent certificate from local Station House Officer.
While submitting the attestation form, the respondant specified the registration of the Criminal Case and acquittal from the charges in a trial by the competent court. Subject to this, he wasn't allowed for training and his case tranferred to the Standing Screening Committee which eventually led to him being disqualified.
He then moved the High Court which ruled in his favour and directed the authorities to send him for training and also ordered that he is entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority, notional fixation of salary etc.
Aggrieved, Centre moved Supreme Court.
CASE FACTS and SUPREME COURT OBSERVATIONS
The arguement of the Centre was that merely making a disclosure of the criminal case in the attestation form is not sufficient for selection. As per the Policy Guidelines dated February 1, 2012, in view of involvement of the respondent in heinous offences, he wouldn't be entitled for appointment until 'honourably acquitted'.
The Top Court in view of this noted that the term 'honourably acquitted' as has been developed through judicial pronouncements.
The Bench then placed reliance on judgments such as State of Assam & Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, RP Kapur vs. Union of India, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh, 2013 Latest Caselaw 462 SC
The principle held in Mehar Singh stated that non-examination of key witnesses leading to acquittal is not honourable acquittal, in fact, it is by giving benefit of doubt. The Court in that case said that nature of acquittal is necessary for core consideration and if the acquittal is not honourable, the candidates would not he suitable for government service and should be avoided.
Upholding the principle above, the Court observed:
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allowed Centre’s appeal.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
