JOGINDER SINGH versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 155 · Decided: 11-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 155 
JOGINDER SINGH 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2325 of 2009 etc.) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2014 
[DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Appointment - To the post of Constable 
A· 
B 
- Denied on the ground that criminal case was initiated 
against the candidate - Claim for appointment - Held: The 
C 
candidate was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and 
he had not concealed the fact of criminal case - Hence, his 
past conduct would not disqualify the candidate for 
appointment- Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Vol. II - r. 12. 18. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1. The acquittal of the appellant was an 
"honourable" acquittal in every sense and purpose. 
Therefore, the appellant should not have been deprived 
from being appointed to the post, in the public 
E 
employment, by declaring him as unsuitable to the post 
even though he was honourably acquitted in the criminal 
case registered against him. [Para 17] [162-G-H; 163-A] 
Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. S. 
Samuthiram 2012 (11) SCR 174: 2013 (1) SCC 598 - relied 
on. 
2. There has been no allegation of concealment of 
the fact that a criminal case was registered against him 
F 
by the appellant. Thus, the appellant had honestly G 
disclosed in his verification application submitted to the 
selection authority that there was a criminal case 
registered against him and that it ended in an acquittal 
155 
H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
A on account of compromise between the parties involved 
in the criminal case, he cannot be denied an opportunity 
to qualify for any post including the post of a Constable. 
[Para 18] [163-A-C] 
Delhi Administration v. Sushi/ Kumar 1996 (7) Suppl. 
B SCR 199:1996 (11) SCC 605; Secretary, Deptt. of Home 
Secy,, A. P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu 2005 (1) SCR 1147:2005 
(2) SCC 746; Commr. of Polipe, Delhi & Anr. v. Dhaval Singh 
; (1999) 1 sec 246 - relied on. 
C 
3. Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Vol. II 
clearly indicates that an acquittal in a criminal case will 
qualify him for appointment to the post of Police 
Constable, as the appellant had successfully qualified the 
other requisites required for his selection. Thus, as the 
o prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the 
appellant by adducing cogent evidence, therefore, the 
Police authorities cannot be allowed to sit in judgment 
over the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in its 
judgment, wherein the appellant has been honourably 
E acquitted. Denying him the appointment to the post of a 
Constable is like a vicarious punishment, which is not 
permissible in law, therefore, the impugned judgment and 
order passed by the High Court is vitiated in law and 
liable to be set aside. [Para 20] [166-E-H] 
· 
F 
Jqgtar Singh v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation 
1993 (3) SCR 77: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCC 49 - relied on. 
4. Thus, the alleged past conduct of the appellant in 
relation to the criminal case will not debar or disqualify 
G him for the post of the Constable for which he was 
successfully selected after qualifying the written test, 
medical test and the interview conducted by the selection 
authority. [Para 22] [167-H; 168-A-B] 
\ 
• 
• JOGINDER SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF 
CHANDIGARH 
157 
Case Law Reference: 
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 199 Relied on 
Para 9 
2012 (11) SCR 174 
Relied on 
Para 16 
2005 (1) SCR 1147 
Relied on 
Para 18 
(1999) 1 sec 246 
Relied on 
Para 18 
1993 (3) SCR 77 
Relied on 
Para 21 
A 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2325 
of 2009. 
C 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2008 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ 
Petition No. 5909 CAT of 2003. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 10126 of 2014. 
Mukesh K. Giri, S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellant. 
Sangram S. Saran, Abhishek Atrey for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 
D 
E 
30798 of 2008. 
F 
2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against 
the common judgment and order dated 24.03.2008 passec;l in 
Civil Writ Petition No. 5909 CAT of 2003 and Civil Writ Petition 
No. 7754 CAT of 2004, by the High Court of Punjab anct 
Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the High Court set aside the 
G 
common order dated 12.3.2003 passed by the Central 
Administrative Tribunal (in short "CAT"), Chandigarh, urging 
various grounds in support of the same. 
3. As both the matters are
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.