UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH v. PRADEEP KUMAR & Anr.

Judgment

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R. 112 [2018] 1 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. v. PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2018) JANAURY 08, 2018 [R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Service law: Appointment – Disciplined force – Post of constable – Whether the candidature of respondents who had disclosed their involvement in the criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled by the Screening Committee on the ground that they are not suitable for the post – Held: Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle candidate for appointment – It is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post – While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, the nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turning hostile or flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post – The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide – Object of screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force – In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide – Therefore, decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents were not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable did not call for interference – Administrative law. Appointment – Disciplined force – Acquittal in criminal case – Claim for appointment – Held: The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the concerned post – If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents. 112 UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. PRADEEP KUMAR 113 Administrative law – Administrative decision – Appointment – Disciplined force – Whether the court can substitute its views for the decision taken by the Screening Committee – Held: Object of screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force – The court cannot substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents. Unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. [Para 10][118-C] Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598 : [2012] 11 SCR 174 – relied on.

#2. Entering into the police service required a candidate to be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents.[Para 11][118-G-H]