Quashed FIR For Minor Offence Not Ground To Deny Job In Police Force: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that a candidate selected for the post of Unarmed Police Constable cannot be denied appointment solely on the basis of a pending criminal case, especially when the FIR has been quashed. In doing so the Court quashed the order refusing appointment and directed reconsideration of the candidate's case. Justice Nirzar S. Desai was hearing a Special Civil...
The Gujarat High Court has held that a candidate selected for the post of Unarmed Police Constable cannot be denied appointment solely on the basis of a pending criminal case, especially when the FIR has been quashed.
In doing so the Court quashed the order refusing appointment and directed reconsideration of the candidate's case.
Justice Nirzar S. Desai was hearing a Special Civil Application filed by Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod challenging the order dated 12.10.2023 whereby he was not permitted to join the post of Unarmed Lokrakshak (police constable) despite being selected.
At the outset, the Court made it clear that pendency or even prior registration of a criminal case cannot operate as an automatic disqualification.
The Court observed,
“If mere pendency of a criminal case or registration of an offence, even if subsequently quashed, is considered an impediment for appointing a person who is otherwise found meritorious and whose name appears in the select list, it would become very easy for persons having vested interests or grudges against such a meritorious candidate to file false FIRs, which may ultimately result in denying him the appointment. Day in and day out, we come across cases where false FIRs are registered on account of matrimonial disputes, on account of financial transaction between two or more private parties, on account of alleged accidents, or on account of some civil disputes pending between two or more private persons...Mere pendency of a criminal case would, per se, not disqualify any candidate from being appointed…The authority is required to consider the case of the petitioner independently and objectively on a case-to-case basis, depending upon the post for which the candidate has applied.”
The petitioner had applied pursuant to a 2021 advertisement issued by the Lokrakshak Bharati Board. After successfully clearing the recruitment process and finding his name in the select list, his appointment was withheld on the ground that an offence registered in 2018 at Dhanpur Police Station under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 149 (rioting with common object), 452 (trespass), 323 (causing hurt), 427(mischief), 504 (insult) and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) IPC had been found during character verification.
Though the FIR and all consequential proceedings had been quashed by a co-ordinate Bench on 15.06.2023, the authorities, upon guidance from the office of the DGP, decided not to appoint him.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Karishma Chauhan submitted that the online application form did not contain any column requiring disclosure of pending criminal cases. She argued that the petitioner's candidature was not rejected on the ground of suppression, and that the allegations in the FIR were limited to giving kick and fist blows and abusing the complainant's mother-in-law.
The FIR had been quashed by consent much prior to the impugned order, and therefore, on the date of denial of appointment, no criminal proceedings were pending. Relying on the decision in Rameshbhai Danabhai Khetariya v. State of Gujarat, she submitted that the employer must assess the nature of the offence and overall circumstances before denying appointment.
Opposing the petition, AGP Kinjal Vyas submitted that appointment to the police force requires high standards of integrity and discipline, and that mere selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. She argued that the authority had exercised discretion after considering the nature of offences reflected in the character verification report.
After considering the rival submissions, the Court framed the core question as to whether even after quashing of an FIR, can the “shadow” of such FIR continue to disentitle a candidate from public employment. The Court observed that if mere registration of an offence, even if subsequently quashed, is treated as a permanent impediment, it would become easy for persons with vested interests to register false FIRs to deprive meritorious candidates of appointment.
The Court further observed that even in cases of acquittal or quashing, the employer retains discretion; however, such discretion must be exercised objectively and with reasons. In cases involving heinous offences, or acquittal on benefit of doubt, denial may be justified. But in cases involving minor allegations, such as petty disputes or minor scuffles, the authority must adopt a balanced approach.
In the present case, the Court noted that the FIR had already been quashed prior to the impugned order and that the allegations were limited to giving kick and fist blows and verbal abuse. It held that the respondents had committed an error in mechanically denying appointment without considering the overall circumstances.
Accordingly, the rejection order dated 12.10.2023 was quashed and set aside.
The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh for appointment to the post of Unarmed Constable (Lokrakshak) in light of the observations made by the Court, subject to medical fitness and other requirements. The petition was allowed.
Case title: Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod v State of Gujarat and others
Case no.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21060 of 2023
Appearance: MS KARISHMA CHAUHAN FOR MR SHIVAM H CHOKSHI for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS KINJAL VYAS ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) No. 1