Mere Registration Of FIR Cannot Render A Candidate Ineligible For Public Appointment: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Directing Canara Bank to issue appointment letter to a woman, whose offer letter was cancelled in 2018 on the ground of a pending FIR, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said mere registration of a criminal case against a candidate can never be a ground for denying the right to participate in a recruitment process and to secure a public appointment. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat in the judgment said...
Directing Canara Bank to issue appointment letter to a woman, whose offer letter was cancelled in 2018 on the ground of a pending FIR, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said mere registration of a criminal case against a candidate can never be a ground for denying the right to participate in a recruitment process and to secure a public appointment.
Justice Rajbir Sehrawat in the judgment said FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence.
"Therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment. A person is to be presumed to be innocent till proved otherwise upon a trial conducted as per the law," said the court.
The bench further said that presumption of innocence cannot be eclipsed in any other collateral process or for any other purpose.
"Reading anything adverse to a person only for registration of an FIR is nothing but a systemic bias based upon a negativism arising from the frustration due to the facts that the criminal cases remain pending for years together and the courts are not in a position to take the trial to a logical end within reasonable time."
The court further said that a convenient method has been devised to deny benefits to citizens by using pendency of FIR against them.
"In this way, an irrelevant fact is made a ground to deny to the citizen right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This approach is sworn enemy of the rule of law, and thus has to be disapproved. Therefore, mere registration of a criminal case against the candidate can never be a ground for denying the rights of such a candidate to participate in the process and to secure a public appointment in his/her favour," it added.
The verdict dated October 31 was passed on a petition seeking quashing of the withdrawal of appointment letter for the post of a 'Probationary Officer' to one Mandeep Kaur
Kaur told the court she had applied for the post of Probationary Officer in the bank, subsequent to which she participated in the process of selection and was ultimately selected as per her merit. She was issued the appointment letter also and joined the training at Gurgaon.
During the training, the petitioner informed the bank that during the period of the process of selection, a criminal case under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against her and her family members. The bank told Kaur to get clearance in the case.
Later, she was asked to report for training at Lucknow. She could not join there as the bank had told her to get clearance in the criminal case, which was still pending then. The FIR was quashed by the high court on July 20 this year.
The bank had denied the appointment to her while relying upon Clause 9 of the appointment letter which stipulated that the appointment was subject to satisfactory report regarding her character and antecedents from the police and non-pendency of any criminal case/prosecution against her
Her counsel in the court argued when she applied for the job, there was no criminal case registered against her. "It was during the selection process that a false case came to be registered. Even that case now stands quashed...," Senior Advocate Birender Singh Rana, submitted
The bank, on the other hand, argued that the appointment letter issued to the petitioner specifically contained a stipulation that any pendency of the criminal case or conviction or compounding of the offence would be taken as adverse to the petitioner; and she will not be entitled to be appointed to the post of Probationary Officer.
Justice Sehrawat since the FIR now stands quashed, the very basis on which the bank's action was based, has been extinguished by the due process of law.
"Therefore, the eclipse cast upon the rights of the petitioner, even if so perceived by the respondents, though without any basis, already stands removed. The reliance of the learned counsel for the respondents upon the terms of appointment letter is totally irrelevant and nonsustainable. It is not even in dispute that there is no rule/regulation applicable to the respondents which prohibits the appointment of a candidate merely on registration of the criminal case," said the court.
It added that induction of a term in the appointment letter to the effect that if a criminal case is registered then the appointment would be denied, would be totally without any legal sanction.
"The respondents cannot introduce a condition in terms of the appointment which is not supported by any statutory provision; and it also goes against the right to equality of the candidate to participate in the process of selection and to secure a public appointment as per his/her merit. Such a condition is an artificial device created by the respondents; which militates against the fundamental rights of the petitioner and against more than one jurisprudential principles. Therefore, the same deserves to be deprecated with the contempt it deserves."
Quashing the bank's order and ordering it to issue appointment letter to Kaur effective from the date the candidate immediately lower to her in the merit list was appointed, the court said she shall also be entitled to all service benefits including seniority and pay fixation on notional basis.
"However, she will not be entitled to arrears of salary upto the date she actually joins. However, this denial of arrears shall not be taken as adverse to the petitioner for any other purpose whatsoever; or for the purpose of grant of any other benefits, including the pensionary benefits at the end of her tenure," said the court.
The bank has been directed to issue necessary appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of two months.
Case Title: Mandeep Kaur v. Canara Bank and Another
Citation: CWP-1827-2019
Coram: Justice Rajbir Sehrawat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 291