Suspecting Citizen After Honourable Acquittal Militates Rule Of Law: Allahabad HC Directs Appointment Of Man ‘Honourably Acquitted’ Of Espionage As Additional District Judge

The Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner who was not issued an appointment letter even after declared successful in his selection in U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Direct Recruitment) Examination 2016. The Bench held that suspecting a citizen after their “honourable acquittal” by a Court “successfully militate against the rule of law” guaranteed by the Constitution.

A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that “the State and its’ institutions, may not continue to entertain such a suspicion or belief any further, as may deprive and deny to the innocent citizen his fundamental right to equality including his right to continuance and progression in life as a citizen, equal in all sense with any other innocent citizens, who may not have been charged with any criminal offence.”

Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Kritika Singh represented the Respondents.

The Petitioner had disclosed his involvement in two cases- one under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and another under Section 124-A of the IPC. In 2014, the Trial Court acquitted him, finding no evidence to support the allegations. Subsequently, the Petitioner secured the 27th rank in the recruitment examination and was recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee.

However, the State Government declined to issue the appointment order, citing adverse material related to his character and antecedents. The refusal was based on charges already adjudicated during the trial and dismissed by the Court.

Other than the self-same material that was considered at the trial faced by the Petitioner, the High Court noted that no other or further material came into existence which was considered by the State authorities, to not certify the character of the Petitioner. “In absence of any foundational or basic relevant fact being proven or established before the learned trial Court, on strength of such material, mere reliance on the seriousness of the charge levelled, causes no consequential legal effect,” it stated.

The Bench remarked, “To say, a citizen would continue to be suspected of an offence alleged and therefore be deprived of fruits of hard labour and “honourable acquittal” earned by him, would be, to not only vicariously penalise an innocent citizen after his innocence has been established in a Court of law, but it would successfully militate against the rule of law itself, guaranteed by the Constitution.”

“It cannot be denied that the petitioner faced a heavy charge of espionage, and the matter required careful consideration by the State authorities, at the same time, it remained material and relevant that the petitioner was honourably acquitted at the criminal trial, with no element of truth found in the prosecution story on most fundamental/vital aspects of the allegation that had a direct bearing on the petitioner’s moral character,” the Court stated.

Consequently, the Court held that “the writ petition must succeed. It is allowed. The communication dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure No.11) is quashed. Mandamus is issued to respondent no. 1 to ensure Character Verification of the petitioner within a period of two weeks. Consequentially, upon completion of all formalities, appointment letter may be issued to the petitioner not later than 15th January 2025. The petitioner may be appointed against existing vacancies, as on date.”

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Pradeep Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:192065-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare; Advocate Umang Srivastava

Respondents: Additional Chief Standing Counsel Kritika Singh; Advocate Ashish Mishra

Click here to read/download the Judgment