'Basis For Acquittal Should Be Strictly Looked Into Before Rejection', Delhi High Court Grants Appointment To Candidate As SI

Background

The Petitioner was charged with Robbery on 12 July 2011 and an FIR was lodged against him. He was accused of offences under Sections 398 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, read with Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act 1959. The Petitioner was ultimately acquitted on 8 November 2012 because prosecution could not establish its case due to lack of evidence.

Later, in 2017, the Petitioner applied for the Post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) (Male) in the Delhi Police, by the Delhi Police Examination 2017, which was to be conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. The Petitioner was declared provisionally selected for the post on 3 November 2018 as per the final result of the DPE issued by the SSC. However, certain formalities like verification of character, antecedents of the candidates and checking of the documents was required to be done. The Petitioner had informed the authorities regarding the lodging of the FIR and his acquittal at the time of the application to the said post.

The Petitioner was served a Show Cause Notice to show cause as to why his candidature was liable for rejection considering the involvement of his name in the FIR. He replied stating that the charges levelled against him were false and that he was honourably acquitted of the alleged offences.

However, despite the reply, the Petitioner's appointment as SI was cancelled on 24 September 2019, based on the Petitioner's acquittal being possible due to the failure of the prosecution to establish the case against him as no independent police witness had joined and all the PWs were police officials. Meanwhile the Screening Committee also observed that the Petitioner was accused of a grave offence and that his “criminal tendency with disrespect for law” rendered him unfit to be appointed for the post of a Police Officer.

Aggrieved by the Dismissal Order, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v Bunty, Commissioner of Police v Raj Kumar and UOI v Methu Meda and made certain observations. It observed that the Screening Committee could recommend the case of a candidate involved in criminal proceedings and acquitted by the competent Court after due consideration. The Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the order cancelling the appointment of the Petitioner and accordingly dismissed the Application.

Ultimately, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Contentions of the Parties:

The Counsel for the Petitioner referred to certain paras of the Judgement of the Single Judge, establishing that the Petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution could not establish a case against the Petitioner and not because he was given a benefit of doubt. Calling the case of the prosecution, “highly doubtful”, the Counsel argued that there were material inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and that there was no explanation as to why no independent witness was joined.

To justify the arguments made, the Counsel relied on the judgments in Mahesh Kumar v UOI, Joginder Singh v UT of Chandigarh and Pramod Singh Kirar v State of MP.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in such cases, the decision of the Screening Committee was to be followed, especially when the appointment concerned Delhi Police.

Findings of the Court:

The Court referred to the Standing Order which specified the Guidelines in Clause 3, stating that an appointment to the Delhi Police could be cancelled even in a case of acquittal or discharge of the candidate in the criminal case and the acquittal would not necessarily entitle the candidate for appointment to the post. As per the Standing Order, the Screening Committee while deciding upon the matters of appointment of the candidates had to look into,

(a) the antecedents of the candidate,

(b) the suitability of the candidate for appointment,

(c) whether the candidate was acquitted honourably or on “compromise/benefit of doubt/witnesses turning hostile”,

(d) the nature and gravity of the charge against the candidate.

The Court further held that the Standing Order made distinction between honourable acquittal, acquittal on compromise, benefit of doubt and witnesses turning hostile.

Observing that the Tribunal found the Petitioner unsuitable for the post after adhering to the principles mentioned in the Standing Order, the Court referred to certain significant decisions including Mahesh Kumar v UO, Joginder Singh v UT of Chandigarh, Pramod Singh Kirar v State of MP, State of Rajasthan v Love Kush Meena, State of M.P. v Bhupendra Yadav and several others.

Relying on the aforementioned judgements, the Court observed that the Apex Court has held that candidates who were given an honourable acquittal by the Court could claim a right of appointment while on the other hand, candidates who were acquitted because the prosecution could not establish their case or that the witnesses had turned hostile, the candidate could not claim such right.

The Court held that in the case being decided, it was important to determine the basis on which the candidate was acquitted.

Going into the details of how the candidate was acquitted, the Court held that in the present case, the prosecution had “miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt” and that the Petitioner was entitled to acquittal. Moreover, since the ASJ had clearly stated that the Petitioner was innocent of the allegations, the Court held that the case was undoubtedly false and unsustainable. The Court stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations levelled against the Petitioner.

Moreover, the Court held that the Screening Committee has not appreciated all the facts of the case and has only taken a holistic view of the judgment of the ASJ, acquitting the Petitioner.

Stating that the acquittal of the Petitioner was 'clean', the Court observed that the decision of the Screening Committee was made on the basis of presumption and that it failed to appreciate the judgment of the ASJ.

Making these observations, the Court held that the Screening Committee did not apply its mind and thus set aside the decision of the Tribunal directing the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner to the post of SI.

Accordingly, the Petition was disposed of.

Case Title: MANISH SAINI versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms Manisha Parmar and Mr Kapil Chaudhary, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Kshitij Chhabra

Click Here To Download Order/Judgement