UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus METHU MEDA

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 06-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 657
657
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
v.
METHU MEDA
(Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 2021)
OCTOBER 06, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J.K MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Acquittal from criminal case –
Nature of – Effect of – Respondent applied for the post of Constable
in Central Industrial Security Force – Provisionally selected – Found
not eligible for appointment on account of a criminal case of
kidnapping for ransom against him, though acquitted – Held: If a
person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge
of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses
turned hostile, like in the present case, it would not automatically
entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force – Mere
disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not
sufficient – Employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to
the candidate – Impugned orders passed by Single Judge as well as
Division Bench set aside.
Words & Expressions – ‘honourable acquittal’– Meaning of
– Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The expressions ‘honourable acquittal’,
‘acquitted of blame’ and ‘fully acquitted’ are unknown to the Code
of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code. It has been
developed by judicial pronouncements. if the acquittal is directed
by the court on consideration of facts and material evidence on
record with the finding of false implication or the finding that the
guilt had not been proved, accepting the explanation of accused
as just, it be treated as honourable acquittal. If prosecution could
not prove the guilt for other reasons and not ‘honourably’ acquitted
by the Court, it be treated other than ‘honourable’, and
proceedings may follow. Acquittal giving benefit of doubt would
not automatically lead to reinstatement of candidate unless the
rules provide so. [Paras 11, 13 and 14][663-C-D-; 664-A-B, D-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
Inspector General of Police & Another vs. Samuthiram
(2013) 1 SCC 598:[2012] 11 SCR 174; State of Assam
& Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari (1972) 7 SLR
44; R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 787 :
[1964] SCR 431; Reserve Bank of India vs. Bhopal
Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541 : [1993] 3 Suppl.
SCR 586 – relied on.
1.2 If acquittal is not honourable, the candidates are not
suitable for government service and are to be avoided. The
relevant factors and the nature of offence, extent of his
involvement, propensity of such person to indulge in similar
activities in future, are the relevant aspects for consideration by
the Screening Committee, which is competent to decide all these
issues. In the present case, the charges were framed against the
respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 347/327/
323/506(Part-II) and 364A IPC. He was acquitted after trial by
the Sessions Judge, Jhabua because the person kidnapped and
also his wife have not supported the case of prosecution. As per
prosecution, the complainant was beaten by the respondent and
the said fact found support from the evidence of doctor. Therefore,
it appears that the Committee was of the view that acquittal of
the respondent, in the facts of the present case, cannot be termed
as ‘honourable acquittal’ and the said acquittal may be treated by
giving benefit of doubt. The employer is having right to consider
the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/
instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction
of the candidate in employment. Acquittal on technical ground in
respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a
clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all
relevant facts available as to the antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even
in case, truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been
made by the employee, still the employer has the right to consider
antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
[Paras 15, 16 and 18][664-G-H; 665-A-C; 667-C-E]
New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC
685: [2013] 13 SCR 432; Union Territory, Chandigarh
Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr.
(2018) 1 SCC 797: [2018] 1 SCR 112 - relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
659
1.3 The respondent who wishes to join the police force must
be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character
and integrity. A person having a criminal antecedents would not
be fit in th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.