Mere Filing Of FIR/Chargsheet Not Enough To Reject Candidature, Each Case Must Be Examined To Determine Involvement Of Moral Turpitude: Rajasthan HC
Setting aside the rejection of the candidature of a meritorious candidate for the post of a government teacher, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that in the event of filing of a criminal complaint against the candidate, the Government is required to scrutinize the matter considering the facts involved to reach a decision, whether the act done by the candidate involved moral turpitude that...
Setting aside the rejection of the candidature of a meritorious candidate for the post of a government teacher, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that in the event of filing of a criminal complaint against the candidate, the Government is required to scrutinize the matter considering the facts involved to reach a decision, whether the act done by the candidate involved moral turpitude that would disentitle the candidate for the appointment.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that not every FIR or even conviction would itself involve a refusal of a certificate of good character or consequent disqualification.
“Thus, in the opinion of this Court, each individual case is required to be examined from the angle that whether the act/offence committed by such person involves moral turpitude or not and whether a person who has committed such act can be granted a certificate of 'Good character' or not. Without examining each case on the facts and circumstances of that criminal case, the candidature cannot be rejected merely on the ground that an FIR/Charge-sheet has been filed…”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a successful candidature (Petitioner) for the post of Government Teacher, whose name was included in the list of successful candidates.
However, before the declaration of the result, a case under Section 498A, IPC (cruelty against women by husband or in-laws) was filed by his wife leading to the cancellation of his appointment. Hence, the petition was filed by the candidate.
It was argued by the petitioner that the case had been filed solely due to marital discord and the allegations levelled against him did not constitute an offence of moral turpitude.
Furthermore, the petitioner also made reference to a Department of Personnel circular/notification dated December 12, 2019 (“the Circular) as per which the Government was required to take into account the allegations in the charge sheet for deciding on the appointment of the candidate. It was argued that such exercise was not undertaken by the Government which gave a decision only on the basis of involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case.
Aligning with the argument put forth by the petitioner, the Court observed that as per the reply of the Government, the only ground to reject the candidature of the petitioner was the appearance of the offence under Section 498A in the list given under the Circular.
In this light, the Court opined that the Circular could not be applied in a mechanical manner by the Government to the effect of denying appointment to the petitioner merely for being involved in any criminal case. However, the authorities were required to examine the charge sheet filed against the concerned candidate for making a decision on whether the character of the candidate was good or bad.
“The principle for arriving at a decision that a person is not entitled for appointment in the services of the State is based on the fact that whether the act/offence committed by a candidate/person involves moral turpitude or not? If a person has committed an act which can come in the ambit of moral turpitude and the act done by such person shall have negative impact in discharge of his duties on the post on which he will be appointed, then in these two situations that person/candidate is certainly dis-entitled for appointment on that post.”
In the background of this analysis on the principle of reaching a decision on appointment for a public post, the Court ruled that every case needed to be examined from the angle of whether the act involved moral turpitude of the person because mere involvement or conviction in a criminal case was no indication of bad character.
Hence, it was held that since such scrutiny was not done by the Government in the present case of the petitioner, the decision of rejecting his appointment was contrary to the law.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed directing the Government to consider the case of the petitioner taking into account facts of the case filed against him.
Title: Dana Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 280