No Absolute Bar On Appointment In Armed Forces Where Acquittal Is On The Ground Of Benefit Of Doubt: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that there is no absolute bar on the appointment in Armed Forces where the candidate's acquittal is on the ground of benefit of doubt.
The Court, allowing a petition challenging the revocation of a candidate's appointment due to disclosed acquittal in a criminal case, directed reconsideration by the Union for the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP).
The Court noted that denying the appointment to the acquitted Petitioner who truthfully disclosed credentials would be akin to indirect punishment.
The Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed, “there was acquittal of the Petitioner and respondent though was not bound to continue Petitioner in the service yet being public authority was duty bound to thoroughly examine case of the Petitioner. The appointment letter of the Petitioner could not be mechanically cancelled. The respondent has not examined antecedents of the Petitioner in totality”.
Advocate Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Indresh Goel appeared for the Union.
The Petitioner filed a petition challenging the order that had cancelled his appointment letter. The Petitioner's father, who served in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP), passed away in 1996. In 2018, the Petitioner faced an FIR under various sections but was acquitted of all charges. Subsequently, the Respondent issued an appointment letter, and the Petitioner disclosed his previous criminal implication and subsequent acquittal. The Respondent then issued a show-cause notice, questioning the Petitioner's appointment in the ITBP force.
The Petitioner responded to the notice, but the respondent, through an order cancelled the appointment letter, citing the Petitioner's acquittal with the benefit of the doubt. According to Ministry of Home Affairs instructions, individuals implicated in offences like the one under Section 4 of the POCSO Act could not be retained after acquittal.
The Court observed that acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt or due to hostile witnesses might still make a candidate unsuitable for positions in the Armed Forces. The Court reiterated that Courts should take judgments of acquittal into account in departmental proceedings. The Court pointed out that terms like honourable acquittal are not recognized in criminal procedure, and the concept of benefit of the doubt should not lessen the impact of acquittal.
The Bench noted that acquittal is honourable in every sense, emphasizing that candidates acquitted in criminal cases should not be considered unsuitable for public employment.
The Court added, “(i) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude extending benefit of reasonable doubt, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(ii) In case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has right to consider antecedent and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(iii) Yardstick to be applied in cases where appointment sought relates to a law enforcement agency ought to be more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy”.
The Court highlighted that the Petitioner truthfully and voluntarily disclosed a concluded criminal case, indicating no concealment. The Petitioner received an appointment letter on compassionate grounds after being implicated in an FIR in April 2018 at the age of 23. The charges were related to an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and various sections of the IPC. However, the prosecutrix and her mother did not support the prosecution's case, leading the Trial Court to acquit the Petitioner, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.
The Court noted that the Respondent heavily relied on instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs. These instructions state that, in case of acquittal involving moral turpitude, a candidate may or may not be appointed to the Armed Forces.
“It is well known fact that in our country, it is very difficult to get job especially Government job. The petitioner got selected for the post of Constable with the respondent-department. The appointment is neither fundamental nor vested right of the petitioner, however, matter needs to be examined in totality. The denial of appointment to the petitioner ignoring that he was always bonafide and honest in disclosing his credentials would amount to indirect punishment for an offence in which he has been acquitted”, the Court added.
The Court reiterated that although the respondent was not obligated to continue the Petitioner's service, as a public authority, it was duty-bound to thoroughly examine the Petitioner's case. The cancellation of the appointment letter, based solely on the mechanical application of the Ministry of Home Affairs instructions, without a holistic assessment of the Petitioner's antecedents, was deemed inappropriate.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Union to reconsider the Petitioner's case for appointment within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Cause Title: Deepak Kumar v UoI (2024:PHHC:001707)
