The Supreme Court has directed the appointment of a man to the post of Police Constable whose candidature was cancelled as he was involved in a criminal case.

The bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar observed that the offence for which he was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal and had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court.

In this case, the appellant herein applied for the post of Police Constable. In the verification form, he disclosed of his being tried for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

However, as he was involved in the criminal case, though he was acquitted, his candidature was rejected.

The appellant filed the writ petition before the High Court against the cancellation of his selection/candidature.

The Single Judge set aside the cancellation of his candidature and non-appointment and directed the State to appoint him as a Police Constable with all consequential benefits including 50% back wages from the date on which other batchmates came to be appointed on the post of Constable.

Upon an appeal by the State, the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Single Judge by observing that if the candidate is found to be involved in a criminal case, even in a case of acquittal and/or even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case the employer still has the right to consider antecedents.

The aforesaid Order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate S.K. Gangele appeared on behalf of the appellant whereas Dy. AG Ankita Chaudhary appeared on behalf of the respondent – State.

The Court observed that "…as such there was no suppression on the part of the appellant in not disclosing true and correct facts. It is also required to be noted that the appellant came to be acquitted for the offence under Section 498A of IPC vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2006 i.e., 7 years before he applied for the post of Constable."

The Court held that the criminal case for the offence under Section 498A resulted in acquittal of the appellant in the year 2006 thus the appellant should not be denied the appointment in the year 2013/2014.

"The offence for which he was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court. Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC…", the Court held.

Thus the Court set aside the Order passed by the Division Bench.

The Court restored the Order of the Single Judge to the extent setting aside the order of cancelling the candidature and non-appointment of the appellant as Constable.

Cause Title- Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order



Justice MR ShahJustice CT Ravikumar

Ashish Shaji