Employer Cannot Be Compelled To Appoint A Candidate Merely Because He Made Truthful Declaration Regarding Criminal Cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an employer cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate merely because truthful declaration regarding criminal cases has been made by the employee.

The court said that the employer still has the right to consider criminal antecedents of such a candidates.

If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed while setting aside the High Court judgment which directed appointment of a candidate to the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force.

In this case, the candidature was rejected on the ground that he was found involved in an offence of kidnapping for demand of ransom. Though he was acquitted in the said case because the complainant, who was abducted, turned hostile, the authority expressed a view that his candidature could not be considered since he was not honourably acquitted from the charge involving moral turpitude.

In appeal, the bench referred to earlier judgments and noted that , if the acquittal is directed by the court on consideration of facts and material evidence on record with the finding of false implication or the finding that the guilt had not been proved, accepting the explanation of accused as just, it be treated as honourable acquittal. In other words, if prosecution could not prove the guilt for other reasons and not 'honourably' acquitted by the Court, it be treated other than 'honourable', and proceedings may follow, the court said. The bench, referring to Avtar Singh vs. Union of India  (2016) 8 SCC 471

It is clear that the employer is having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment. Acquittal on technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even in case, truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made by the employee, still the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

The court added that a person wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. 

"21. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear the respondent who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. A person having a criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category. The employer is having right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is completely exonerated because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee and the decision of the Committee would be final unless mala fide"

Allowing the appeal, the court observed thus:

"22. As discussed hereinabove, the law is well­settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate."

Click here to Read/Download Judgment