UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. versus PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 08-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.
v.
PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2018)
JANAURY 08, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Service law:
Appointment – Disciplined force – Post of constable – Whether
the candidature of respondents who had disclosed their involvement
in the criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled by
the Screening Committee on the ground that they are not suitable
for the post – Held: Acquittal in a criminal case does not
automatically entitle candidate for appointment – It is open to the
employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is
suitable for appointment to the post – While deciding whether a
person involved in a criminal case acquitted or discharged should
be appointed to a post in a police force, the nature of offence in
which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or
only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turning
hostile or flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered
by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the
candidate is suitable for the post – The decision of the Screening
Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide
– Object of screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable
character enters police force – In the case in hand, there is nothing
to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide
–  Therefore, decision of the Screening Committee that the
respondents were not suitable for being appointed to the post of
Constable did not call for interference – Administrative law.
Appointment – Disciplined force – Acquittal in criminal case
– Claim for appointment – Held: The acquittal in a criminal case is
not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the concerned
post – If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be
inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal
antecedents.
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 112
112
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
113
Administrative law –  Administrative decision – Appointment
– Disciplined force – Whether the court can substitute its views for
the decision taken by the Screening Committee – Held: Object of
screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character
enters police force – The court cannot substitute its views for the
decision of the Screening Committee.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot
always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no
criminal antecedents.  Unless it is an honourable acquittal, the
candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. [Para 10][118-C]
Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S.
Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598 : [2012] 11 SCR 174 –
relied on.
2. Entering into the police service required a candidate to
be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents.[Para
11][118-G-H]
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v.
Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432;
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Parvez Khan
(2015) 2 SCC 591; Avtar Singh v. Union of India and
Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 – relied
on.
3.1 A candidate to be recruited to the police service must
be of impeccable character and integrity.  A person having criminal
antecedents will not fit in this category.  Even if he is acquitted or
discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably
acquitted/completely exonerated.  The decision of the Screening
Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala
fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the
importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the
candidate with utmost character. [Para 13][122-C-D]
3.2 The Screening Committee examined each and every
case of the respondents and reasonings for their acquittal and
taken the decision.  While deciding whether a person involved in
a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v.
PRADEEP KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he
is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an
extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile
and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered
by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the
candidate is suitable for the post. The Screening 

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