Mere Registration Of Criminal Case Does Not Mechanically Disqualify A Candidate From Police Service: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate cannot be mechanically disqualified from appointment to the police force merely because a criminal case was registered against him. It held that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which governs verification of the character and antecedents of State Government recruits, provides for an assessment of the candidate's suitability and does...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate cannot be mechanically disqualified from appointment to the police force merely because a criminal case was registered against him.
It held that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which governs verification of the character and antecedents of State Government recruits, provides for an assessment of the candidate's suitability and does not impose a blanket ban on persons against whom a crime has been registered.
Under the Government Order, cases of direct recruits to the police below the rank of a State Service Officer go to the Deputy Inspector General, C.I.D. and the District Superintendent of Police, and where the report is unfavourable, to the District Magistrate, who must hear the candidate before forming his own opinion.
The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,
“There is, thus, no law that requires a candidate to be disqualified mechanically because a case was registered against him. The nature of the crime and the circumstances, all have to be taken into consideration, and offences, that are not grave, for the mere registration of them would not disqualify a person from employment to the police force, as in the present case.”
Rejecting the State's submission that a candidate against whom a case had been registered was unfit to be retained in government service, the Court observed,
“Mr. Upadhyay advocates a mechanical approach of a guillotine exclusion of any candidate from consideration for appointment to government service, against whom a criminal case, except a petty offence, has been registered. We do not agree.”
Respondent was selected and appointed as a Constable in the Civil Police at Aligarh and transferred to Firozabad for training, where he joined on 08.10.1997. Twenty days later he was removed from service on the ground that a criminal case had been pending against him before his selection, which he had not disclosed. He had been acquitted on 19.09.1997 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anupshahr, Bulandshahr on a compromise.
Respondent argued that he did not know of the case when he filed his affidavit of non-involvement on 24.07.1997, and learnt of it two or three days before the compromise.
The State pleaded that the affidavit was false as Crime No. 88 of 1994 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 325 IPC, P.S. Dibai, Bulandshahr was pending when he applied and when he was selected.
The Single Judge, relying on a Division Bench decision holding that an acquittal requires a person to be regarded as never having been involved, quashed the orders dated 31.01.1998 and 24.03.2001 and directed reinstatement with continuity, though without back wages. The State filed the special appeal.
On the question of knowledge, the Court observed that the date of registration of the FIR did not figure clearly from the record, making it difficult to say with certainty whether respondent was a minor at the time. It held that it was for the employer to show that he had applied for bail or taken part in the investigation or trial, so as to attribute knowledge of the case to him, and that no such plea had been raised.
Relying on Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others and Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, the Court held that the offences were compoundable and involved neither moral turpitude nor a heinous crime like murder, dacoity or rape. It held that even had respondent known of the case, his candidature would not have been liable to cancellation.
Holding that the Police Headquarters, Allahabad and the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad had both proceeded mechanically, and agreeing with the Single Judge for different and added reasons, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: State of U.P. through Secretary and others v. Janmesh Kumar