Allahabad High Court Lays Down Procedure & Standard Of Evidence For Enquiry Into Criminal Antecedents Of A Candidate During Selection Process

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has laid down the procedure to be adopted by the competent authority for inquiring into the criminal antecedents of a candidate for the purpose of selection. A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot has elucidated the type of materials that may be considered by such authority, the standard of proof, and other aggravating/ mitigating factors for the purpose. The Bench has also made it clear that such inquiry is different from a trial/civil proceeding before a Court of law and hence, competent authority is not always bound by the findings of the court, nor is it invariably constrained by the opinion of the investigation officer. The order comes in a writ petition filed by one Sanny Kumar, aggrieved by an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, cancelling his selection as Constable in the UP Police, in the backdrop of several criminal cases pending against him. Arguments The Petitioner submitted that he had truthfully declared details of all the criminal cases pending against him in the affidavit of verification. He argued that he has not been chargesheeted in two cases, one of which he said is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute of his brother. He further submitted that he was acquitted in one criminal case and in the absence of conviction by a court, appointment cannot be refused. The Standing Counsel for the State of UP on the other hand submitted that the Petitioner was named in multiple criminal cases. He was not acquitted honourably by the trial court in the first case. He was named in the FIR lodged in the other cases including one for an act of moral turpitude. It was submitted that the fact that the Investigation Officer did not chargesheet the Petitioner does not exonerate him, particularly, when trials are on foot. Findings At the outset, the Bench observed that the Police is a "disciplined force" which is charged with the duty to uphold the law and order in the State. Thus, personnel in uniform belonging to disciplined forces, are expected to bear impeccable character and possess unimpeachable integrity. In this backdrop, it observed that it is essential to examine the suitability of candidates for appointment. An important factor for determination of such suitability is the role of "Criminal Antecedents". Nature of the proceeding/Scope of Enquiry into suitability for appointment "Determination of suitability of a candidate for appointment is an administrative decision which is part of the recruitment process. The process of evaluating suitability for appointment is not an adjudication of guilt or innocence as in a criminal case. Nor is it a quasi judicial process or a civil law proceeding." Material for consideration by the authority The Bench observed that the material available before an authority to determine the suitability of a candidate may be either reliable and conclusive, or credible but probative. However, both kinds of material are liable to be considered. The Bench categorically held that material of probative value but credible worth is not to be discarded, and there is no impediment in its consideration. "One such source is the record of criminal proceedings against the candidate. The full inventory of material before the authority includes the F.I.R., the evidence collected during the criminal investigation, chargesheet submitted in court, evidence emerging during the trial, the judgment rendered by a court of law. On the foot of such material, the competent authority can make its decision on the fitness of the candidate for appointment," it observed in the facts of the case. Method of Evaluation of Material/ applicability of Standards of evidence The High Court has held that a competent authority is not always bound by the findings of the court, nor is it invariably constrained by the opinion of the investigation officer. The reason for the same is as follows: Criminal prosecution of an individual before the court of law is to bring an offender of criminal laws to justice, and to punish the guilty. The object of the competent authority in a recruitment process is only to determine the suitability of a candidate to hold a public post. The order states, "The purposes of a criminal investigation, criminal trial, civil proceeding, departmental enquiry, are distinct from the rationale behind the exercise of verification of criminal antecedents of a candidate for appointment in a recruitment process. The nature of rights engaged in the respective proceedings are also different. The lattermost proceeding is an executive function, while former proceedings are judicial and quasi judicial in nature respectively." The Bench has also held that strict rules of evidence, i.e. proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, apply to criminal prosecution. The competent authority on the contrary is not ...

Allahabad High Court Lays Down Procedure & Standard Of Evidence For Enquiry Into Criminal Antecedents Of A Candidate During Selection Process

Akshita Saxena

Tags