No Adverse Inference Can Be Drawn Against A Candidate From Quashed FIR: Tripura HC [Read Order]

In our considered view, the FIR once registered has been quashed by this Court u/Sec. 482 of the CrPC, no inference can be drawn to impute any adverse antecedents which in any manner may come in way depriving him from seeking public employment, the bench said.

The Tripura High Court has observed that no adverse inference can be drawn against a candidate seeking public employment, when the FIR once registered against him was quashed by the high court.

The appointment to a candidate who was finally selected in Group-D post in the High Court of Tripura was cancelled on the ground that at one stage an FIR accusing him of offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 was registered against him. Though the high court, when he approached it earlier, directed the authorities to reconsider, it was again rejected on the ground that though the criminal proceedings instituted against the candidate has been quashed by the high court, his conduct does not generate confidence for employment in the service of the high court.

A bench of Chief Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice S Talapatra observed that, apart from the FIR once registered against him, there are no other criminal antecedents which may deny him from consideration for appointment and the relevant rules only disqualifies those convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

The bench observed: “In the instant case, there was only an FIR registered against him and it was prima facie found to be false and fabricated and that has been quashed, as already observed by us, no adverse inference can be drawn to impute on his conduct which could come in way of the petitioner seeking employment.”

The court also referred to apex court judgment in Joginder Singh v Union Territory of Chandigarh that had held that once there was acquittal by the competent court of jurisdiction, he should not have been deprived from seeking public employment by declaring him to be unsuitable for the post.

Quashing the order that cancelled his appointment, the court directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment in Group-D post on his selection.