'Honourable acquittal' in criminal cases can be insisted upon as condition for employment in disciplined force: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that if a person is acquitted of an offence involving moral turpitude by giving him the benefit of doubt or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him to employment, particularly in a disciplined force like Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) [Union of India v. Methu Meda]..A Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari held that the employer can insist on ‘honourable acquittal’ in such cases.In this regard the Court, explained 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 will 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 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,” the Court ruled..The judgment was delivered on an appeal filed by the Central government against a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had directed the government to send the respondent, who had secured selection in CISF, for training.The respondent had been involved in an offence of kidnapping for demand of ransom and an FIR had been registered against him for the same in 2009.The sessions court acquitted him because the complainant, who was abducted, turned hostile in the Court. Thereafter, respondent applied for the post of constable in CISF and got selected..An offer of appointment for provisional selection was also issued to the respondent subject to the conditions given in the agreement form. The respondent was required to furnish the documents including attestation forms, certificate of character, character and antecedent certificate from local Station House Officer.The respondent, while submitting the attestation form, specified the registration of the criminal case and acquittal from the charges in a trial by the competent court.Due to the same, he was not allowed to join the training. His case was then referred to a Standing Screening Committee which examined cases of 89 candidates including the respondent and passed an order that respondent was not eligible for appointment..He then moved the High Court which ruled in his favour and directed the authorities to send him for training and also ordered that he is entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority, notional fixation of salary etc.This led to the Central government’s appeal before the Supreme Court.The argument of the government was that merely making a disclosure of the criminal case in the attestation form is not sufficient. As per the Policy Guidelines dated February 1, 2012, in view of involvement of the respondent in heinous offences, he would not be entitled for appointment until “honourably acquitted”..The Supreme Court at the outset noted that expressions ‘honourable acquittal’, ‘acquitted of blame’ and ‘fully acquitted’ are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code.However, it has been developed through judicial pronouncements, the Court observed.The Court then proceeded to place reliance on a catena of judgments including State of Assam & Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, RP Kapur vs. Union of India, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh..In Mehar Singh, it was held that non-examination of key witnesses leading to acquittal is not honourable acquittal, in fact, it is by giving benefit of doubt. The Court in that case said that nature of acquittal is necessary for core consideration and if the acquittal is not honourable, the candidates would not he suitable for government service and should be avoided.The same principle was applied to the instant case.“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 Bench said..The Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the government’s appeal.[Read Judgment]