Appointment To Government Post Cannot Be Denied Due To Mere Implication In Dowry Case: Allahabad High Court

While considering a case of an appointment to a government post, the Allahabad High Court has held that merely being implicated in a criminal case does not de facto form a basis for rejecting the candidate.

In the case where the person seeking appointment was the brother of the main accused and had been implicated in case for dowry, Justice J.J. Munir observed that

“Given the social conditions prevalent in society, while women do become victims of cruelty in their matrimonial homes, it is equally true, and by now, judicially acknowledged, that for slight or no infraction, the entire family of the husband is either reported to the Police or brought before the criminal Court by a disenchanted wife or her relatives, alleging cruelty. Should in a case like this, a candidate selected for his merit through a public examination, who otherwise has a clean image and is part of the mainstream society, be banished from the privileges of public employment?”

Case Background

Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Boring Technician, Minor Irrigation Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He appeared in the relevant examination and passed it successfully. He was then called for a verification of his documents. On his arrival, however, the petitioner was denied the issuance of an appointment letter. He was informed that this was due to the fact that he had a pending criminal case against him under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prevention Act, 1961.

In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition praying that the respondents be directed to reconsider his appointment on the basis of the selection results. The Court, while disposing of that petition, directed that the petitioner be allowed to submit a fresh representation to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department and that the Chief Engineer decide the representation in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation which was rejected, once again on the grounds that a criminal case was pending against him. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition.

Petitioner contended that when he applied for the post, he was unaware of the institution of a criminal case against him. He submitted that the case in question was filed by his elder brother's father-in-law against his entire family, barring his brother, for mentally and physically harassing the daughter for dowry. Pursuant to this, a summoning order was issued, on the basis of which the petitioner was declined the appointment letter.

It was pleaded that the entire proceedings of the criminal case had been challenged by the petitioner where the Court issued notice to the complainant and stayed further proceedings in the complaint.

High Court Verdict

The Court held that the impugned order was “riddled and clogged with unnecessary details”. The Court examined the documents pertaining to the District Management's involvement and Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which outlined the rules for background verification of an individual prior to being appointed to a government service. It held that District Magistrate failed in his duty to report his own views to the Appointing Authority after receiving the relevant report from the police.

Further, to determine whether the petitioner was to be denied employment, the Court clarified that the purpose of the Government Order dated 28.04.1948 was only to ensure that no man with a criminal antecedent could enter the government. Considering the complex nature of dowry cases, the Court held that where the allegation was not serious and complicity could not be established, the petitioner could not be denied employment on the basis of the same.

The Court held that the petitioner had not concealed any facts from his employers because there were no pending cases against him when he applied for the post. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar and Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. to hold that for offences arising out of matrimonial disputes, even in the case of trivial offences, public employment was not to be denied.

Justice Munir observed that the petitioner did not appear to be a man of criminal antecedents. It was observed that there was no proof to conclusively establish that the petitioner committed the crimes he had been accused of, especially given the lack of a proper report by the District Magistrate.

Regarding the general accusation made against the petitioner's family, the Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. to hold that since the petitioner did not conceal any information, he was not at fault, a fact that was not disputed by the respondents.

“This is a case, given the nature of allegations and the offence, besides the nature of proceedings taken, which is a complaint case against the petitioner, who is the brother of the prosecutrix's husband, with no specific role assigned to him in the commission of the offence, where, appointment ought not have been denied.”

Allowing the writ petition, the Chief Engineer was directed to reconsider the petitioner's appointment.

Case Title: Baba Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A NO. 12055 OF 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order