'Sensitive Post, Sovereignty Of Nation Involved': MP HC Denies Relief To Candidate With Criminal Antecedents Seeking Job In Defence Establishment

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav observed,

"The sensitivity involved in a post may not be of such high degree as involved in a disciplined/uniformed service but since the organization where the petitioner would have been employed was under the Ministry of Defence catering to the requirements of the Armed Forces, the element of sovereignty of the nation comes into being."

The Court was essentially dealing with miscellaneous petition, wherein the Petitioner was challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, whereby his cancellation of candidature for a post at an Ordnance Factory was upheld.

The case of the Petitioner was that he had applied for the post of Chemical Processor Worker (Semi-skilled) in Ordnance Factory, Itarsi. However, his candidature was cancelled because at the stage of verification process, his employers had found that although he had been acquitted of charges for offences punishable U/S 376, 384, 509 IPC R/W Section 4 of POCSO Act, the same was based on benefit of doubt.

The Petitioner argued that the trial court in its judgment had concluded that the Prosecutrix had registered the complaint against him only to save herself from disrepute. He further submitted that when the genesis of the crime itself was doubted, the trial court ought to have treated the acquittal as clean and honourable. To substantiate his contentions, he relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. He also referred to the judgment the Court in State of M.P. & Ors. v. Yogesh Choudhary, and also the judgment of Bombay High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ganesh Wasudeo Padhal & Anr.).

The Court noted that it is now well settled that unless the acquittal in criminal trial is honourable and clean, the employer has enough discretion to find a candidate to be unfit for employment, subject to various other factors such as sensitivity and job requirement of the post involved.

The Court further opined that considering the post which the Petitioner had applied for, comes under aegis of the Ministry of Defence, the said post cannot be said to be not sensitive. Moreover, an overall reading of the judgment of his acquittal makes it clear that the same was not honourable and clean. The Court observed-

The post in question herein was Chemical Processor Worker(Semi- skilled) in a defence establishment (Ordnance Factory, Itarsi) and therefore, it cannot be said that the post was not sensitive. The sensitivity involved in a post may not be of such high degree as involved in a disciplined/uniformed service but since the organization where the petitioner would have been employed was under the Ministry of Defence catering to the requirements of the Armed Forces, the element of sovereignty of the nation comes into being.

More so, the judgment of acquittal dated 26.05.2017 as aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not honourable and clean. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the prosecutrix who was minor supported her police statement by making implicative testimony in the Court. It is only that the Trial Court after indulging in marshalling of evidence came to a finding that initial complaint made by prosecutrix appears to be false. Thus, the prosecution story was not out-rightly rejected or the offence was not disproved.

In this view of the matter, the judgment of acquittal is based more on benefit of doubt and therefore is not a clean and honourable acquittal.

The Court, thus, dismissed the petition concluding that no case was made for its interference.

Case Title: Vinod Kumar v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 34