REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 67  OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.20750 of 2016) UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH  ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.         …Appellants

Versus PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER            ...Respondents

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68   OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.23855 of 2016)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.69 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.23726 of 2016)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8905 of 2017)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted

2. The question involved in these appeals is  whether the

candidature  of  the  respondents  who  had  disclosed  their

involvement  in  the  criminal  cases  and  also  their  acquittal

could be cancelled by the Screening Committee on the ground

Page No. 1 of 15

that  they  are  not  suitable  for  the  post  of  constable  in

Chandigarh Police and whether  the court  can substitute its

views  for  the  decision  taken  by  the  Screening  Committee.

Since the facts  and issues are almost  identical  in  all  these

appeals, they were heard together and shall stand disposed of

by this common judgment.  For convenience, we would deal

with the facts in appeal  arising out of SLP(C) No. 20750 of

2016  

3. On  14.03.2010,  an  advertisement  was  issued  by  UT

Chandigarh  Police  through  its  Deputy  Inspector  General  of

Police inviting applications from the candidates to fill up 1200

temporary posts of Constable (Executive) in Chandigarh Police

with essential qualification as prescribed in the advertisement

with  instructions  for  filling  online  application  form.   The

recruitment was to be done as per guidelines thereon as well

as  standing  order  governing  the  recruitment  of  constables.

Guideline No.2(A)(a) deals with the circumstances when the

candidate does not disclose the factum of his involvement in

the attestation form and the same is found subsequently from

the verification report.   The candidature of such candidates

Page No. 2 of 15

will  be cancelled as per aforesaid guideline without making

any reference to  any Committee  for  further  probe into  the

conduct  of  the  candidate.   In  Guideline  No.2(A)(b),  it  is

prescribed that if a candidate has disclosed his involvement in

some criminal case in the attestation form, then such case will

be referred to Screening Committee to assess his suitability

for appointment in Chandigarh Police irrespective of the fact

that  the  case  is  under  investigation,  trial  or  resulted  in

conviction or acquittal.   

4. Respondents were declared successful in the recruitment

for  the  post  of  Constable  (Executive)  in  Chandigarh  Police

after  clearing  the  Physical  Efficiency  Test,  Physical

Measurement Test, written test and interview.  However, the

respondents were denied the employment on the ground that

the respondents had been prosecuted in a criminal trial  for

the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 506 read with

Section  34  IPC  and  were  acquitted  by  the  trial  court  vide

judgment dated 29.01.2010 giving them benefit of doubt.  The

case  was  referred  to  the  Committee  headed  by  Senior

Superintendent  of  Police  and  it  was  found  that  the

Page No. 3 of 15

respondents were not suitable for appointment as Constables

in the Chandigarh Police.

5. Aggrieved, respondents filed OA before CAT.   CAT  vide

order  dated  24.07.2012  allowed  the  OA  and  set  aside  the

orders  of  the  Screening  Committee  and  directed  the

competent  authority  to  consider  the  names  of  the

respondents for appointment to the post of Constable.  The

State filed writ petition before the High Court which came to

be dismissed for  all  the  respondents  except  Ombir  holding

that there was no concealment of criminal antecedents. Being

aggrieved, the State has preferred these appeals.   

6. Contention of the appellant is that acquittal of a person

does not entitle him to be appointed as a matter of right and

the appointing authority may still find such a person unfit to

be appointed to the post. It was urged by the appellant that

even though the respondents were acquitted in the criminal

case,  the  appointment  of  the  respondents  to  the  post  of

Constable in Chandigarh police which is  a disciplined force,

was found not desirable by the appointing authority.  It was

submitted  that  the  respondents  were  not  honourably Page No. 4 of 15

acquitted of the offences and the acquittal was only based on

the extension of benefit of doubt. Contention of the appellant

is that the post of Constable in disciplinary force demands an

impeccable integrity and track record besides good character

and  suitability.  Further  contention  is  that  the  court  cannot

overreach  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Screening  Committee  by

substituting  its  own  view  in  the  decision  of  the  said

Committee and hence,  the impugned judgment of the High

Court and the Tribunal is not sustainable.

7. Per  contra,  contention  of  the  respondents  is  that  the

criminal  case  against  the  respondents  was  a  case  of  'no

evidence'  and  the  acquittal  of  the  respondents  is  an

honourable acquittal and the same cannot be termed to be

the  case  of  'benefit  of  doubt'.  Moreover,  respondents  had

fairly disclosed the factum of facing criminal trial  by giving

complete details while applying for the job and there was no

suppression on the part of the respondents. On behalf of the

respondents, much reliance was placed upon Joginder Singh v.

Union Territory of Chandigarh and others (2015) 2 SCC 377.

Page No. 5 of 15

8. On the basis of the aforesaid rival contentions urged on

behalf  of  both  the  parties,  the  following  points  arise  for

consideration:-

(i) Whether  the  contention  of  respondents  that  they were  honourably  acquitted  and  that  they  should  not  be deprived of  being appointed to  the  post  of  Constable  is acceptable? (ii) Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the decision  of  the  Screening  Committee  and  directing  the authorities  to  consider  the  respondents  to  the  post  of Constable in the disciplined police force?

9. On  23.06.2010,  the  Inspector  General  of  police,  UT

Chandigarh issued Standing Order No.44 of 2010 laying down

the  guidelines  to  consider  cases  of  candidates  selected  in

Chandigarh  Police  on  having  found  involvement  in  criminal

cases in the past. This standing order deals with the cases of

candidates before issuance of appointment and after issuance

of  appointment  and  joining.  Relevant  portion  of  the  said

Guidelines reads as under:-

"GUIDELINES (A) CASES BEFORE ISSUE OF APPOINTMENT

(a) The candidature will be cancelled in case the candidate does  not  disclose  the  fact  of  his  involvement  and/or arrest in criminal case(s), complaint case(s), preventive proceedings etc.  in the attestation form and the fact is subsequently  found  out  from  any  verification  report

Page No. 6 of 15

received from the District authorities or for any/other source.

(b) If  a  candidate  has  disclosed  his  involvement  and/or arrest  in  criminal  cases(s),  complaint  case(s), preventive proceedings etc.  the case will be referred to the Screening Committee to assess  his  suitability  for appointment  in  Chandigarh  Police  irrespective  of  the fact  that  the  case  is  under  investigation,  trial  or decided in conviction or acquittal.

........."

In Guideline 2(A)(b), it  is prescribed that if  a candidate has

disclosed  his  involvement  in  some  criminal  case  in  the

attestation form then such case will be referred to Screening

Committee  to  assess  his  suitability  for  appointment  in

Chandigarh  Police  irrespective  of  the  fact  that  the  case  is

under investigation, trial or decided in conviction or acquittal.

In  the  present  case,  in  all  the  cases  of  respondents,  the

aforesaid  situation arises.   On noticing the acquittal  of  the

candidates,  the  cases  of  respondents  were  referred  to

Screening  Committee.   The  Screening  Committee  carefully

examined the cases of the respondents and the reasonings for

their acquittal and the candidature of the respondents were

rejected finding them not suitable.   

10. The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the

suitability of the candidates in the concerned post.  If a person

Page No. 7 of 15

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.  What is honourable acquittal,

was considered by this Court in  Deputy Inspector General of

Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598, in

which this Court held as under:-

"24. The meaning of the expression “honourable acquittal” came  up  for  consideration  before  this  Court  in  RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541. In that case, this Court  has  considered  the  impact  of  Regulation  46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal  by a criminal  court  on the  disciplinary  proceedings.  In  that  context,  this  Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of  blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are  coined  by  judicial  pronouncements.  It  is  difficult  to define  precisely  what  is  meant  by  the  expression “honourably  acquitted”.  When  the  accused  is  acquitted after  full  consideration  of  prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."

11. Entering into the police service required a candidate to

be  of  good  character,  integrity  and clean  antecedents.   In

Commissioner  of  Police,  New  Delhi  and  Another  v.  Mehar

Singh (2013)  7  SCC  685,  the  respondent  was  acquitted

based on the compromise.  This Court held that even though Page No. 8 of 15

acquittal  was  based  on  compromise,  it  is  still  open  to  the

Screening  Committee  to  examine  the  suitability  of  the

candidate  and  take  a  decision.   Emphasizing  upon  the

importance  of  character  and  integrity  required  for  joining

police force/discipline force, in  Mehar Singh case, this Court

held as under:-

"23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it  feels  that  the  acquittal  or  discharge  is  on  technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the  conduct  of  the  prosecution  case  or  is  the  result  of material  witnesses turning hostile.  It  is  only  experienced officers  of  the Screening Committee who will  be able  to judge  whether  the  acquitted  or  discharged  candidate  is likely  to  revert  to  similar  activities  in  future  with  more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature  and  extent  of  such  person’s  involvement  in  the crime  and  his  propensity  of  becoming  a  cause  for worsening  the  law  and  order  situation  rather  than maintaining it.  In  our  opinion,  this  policy  framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this Court as its object appears to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force. 24. We  find  no  substance  in  the  contention  that  by cancelling  the  respondents’  candidature,  the  Screening Committee has overreached the judgments of the criminal court.  We  are  aware  that  the  question  of  co-relation between a criminal case and a departmental enquiry does not directly arise here, but, support can be drawn from the principles  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  connection  with  it because the issue involved is somewhat identical, namely, whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to work in the department. While the standard of proof in a criminal

Page No. 9 of 15

case is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a  departmental  proceeding  is  preponderance  of probabilities.  Quite  often  criminal  cases  end  in  acquittal because  witnesses  turn  hostile.  Such  acquittals  are  not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not stand on a par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the witnesses being won over. In  R.P. Kapur v.  Union of India AIR  1964  SC  787  this  Court  has  taken  a  view  that departmental  proceedings  can  proceed  even  though  a person  is  acquitted  when  the  acquittal  is  other  than honourable. 25. The expression “honourable acquittal” was considered by this Court in  S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598. In that case  this  Court  was  concerned  with  a  situation  where disciplinary  proceedings  were  initiated  against  a  police officer.  Criminal  case  was  pending  against  him  under Section 509 IPC and under Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act. He  was  acquitted  in  that  case  because  of  the non-examination  of  key  witnesses.  There  was  a  serious flaw  in  the  conduct  of  the  criminal  case.  Two  material witnesses turned hostile. Referring to the judgment of this Court in  RBI v.  Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541, where in somewhat similar fact situation, this Court upheld a  bank’s  action  of  refusing  to  reinstate  an  employee  in service  on the  ground that  in  the  criminal  case  he was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt and, therefore, it was not an honourable acquittal, this Court held that the High  Court  was  not  justified  in  setting  aside  the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings. This Court  observed  that  the  expressions  “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame” and “fully exonerated” are unknown  to  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  or  the  Penal Code.  They  are  coined  by  judicial  pronouncements.  It  is difficult  to  define  what  is  meant  by  the  expression “honourably  acquitted”.  This  Court  expressed  that  when the  accused  is  acquitted  after  full  consideration  of  the prosecution  case  and  the  prosecution  miserably  fails  to prove  the  charges  levelled  against  the  accused,  it  can possibly  be  said  that  the  accused  was  honourably acquitted. ................ 33. So far  as respondent  Mehar Singh is  concerned,  his case appears to have been compromised. It was urged that acquittal recorded pursuant to a compromise should not be

Page No. 10 of 15

treated as a disqualification because that will frustrate the purpose of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. We see no merit in this submission. Compromises or settlements have  to  be  encouraged  to  bring  about  peaceful  and amiable atmosphere in the society by according a quietus to disputes. They have to be encouraged also to reduce arrears of cases and save the litigants from the agony of pending  litigation.  But  these  considerations  cannot  be brought  in  here.  In  order  to  maintain  integrity  and high standard  of  police  force,  the  Screening  Committee  may decline to take cognizance of a compromise, if it appears to it  to  be  dubious.  The  Screening  Committee  cannot  be faulted for that. ............... 35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order  in  the  society.  People  repose  great  faith  and confidence in it.  It  must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the  criminal  case,  that  acquittal  or  discharge  order  will have  to  be  examined  to  see  whether  he  has  been completely  exonerated  in  the  case  because  even  a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore,  has  entrusted  the  task  of  taking  decisions  in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished.  Instances  of  police  personnel  behaving  in  a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do  not  enter  the  police  force.  At  the  same  time,  the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even hand."

Page No. 11 of 15

The same principle was reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh

and Others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591.

12. While considering the question of suppression of relevant

information  or  false  information  in  regard  to  criminal

prosecution, arrest or pendency of criminal case(s) against the

candidate, in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016)

8 SCC 471, three-Judges Bench of this Court summarized the

conclusion  in  para  (38).   As  per  the  said  decision  in  para

(38.5), "In a case where the employee has made declaration

truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has

the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to

appoint the candidate."

13. It  is  thus well  settled that  acquittal  in a criminal  case

does  not  automatically  entitle  him  for  appointment  to  the

post.   Still  it  is  open  to  the  employer  to  consider  the

antecedents  and  examine  whether  he  is  suitable  for

appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court

in  Mehar  Singh and  Parvez  Khan cases,  it  is  clear  that  a

candidate  to  be recruited to  the  police service  must  be  of

impeccable character and integrity.  A person having criminal Page No. 12 of 15

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.   

14. In the case in hand, the details of the criminal cases in

which the respondents were involved and the reasonings for

their  acquittal  and  the  consideration  by  the  Screening

Committee are as under:-

Party Name/

SLP No.

Allegations Reasons for acquittal Consideration by  the Screening Committee

Pradeep Kumar SLP(C) No. 20750/16

• FIR  under Sections  148, 149,  323  and 506 IPC.

• Appeared outside  the class  room  of the complainant therein  along with  other people.

• Carrying  lathis and  axe  and started beating  the complainant and  other persons of  his

• PW-1 (complainant) and PW-2  turned hostile and denied all the contents of complaint.

• Witnesses admitted  their signature  on complaint  but said  that  they were  obtained on blank papers.

• IO did not appear. • Therefore the trial

was closed as  no useful  purpose could  be  served by examining  the

• Accused acquitted because star witnesses turned hostile  and thus accused got benefit  of doubt.   

• Appears that witnesses have  been won over.   

• Accused  19 years  age at  the  time

Page No. 13 of 15

village. remaining witnesses.

of commission of offence.

Narender Kumar  SLP  (C) No.20750 /16

• FIR   under Sections  148, 149,  323  and 506 IPC.

• Appeared outside  the class  room  of the complainant therein  along with  other people.

• Carrying lathis and  axe  and started beating  the complainant and  other persons of  his village.

• PW1 (complainant) and PW2  turned hostile and denied all the contents of complaint.

• Witnesses admitted  their signature  on complaint  but said  that  they were  obtained on blank papers.

• IO did not appear. • Therefore the trial

was closed as  no useful  purpose could  be  served by examining  the remaining witnesses.

• Accused acquitted because star witnesses turned hostile  and thus accused got benefit  of doubt.   

• Appears that witnesses have  been won over.   

• Accused  21 years  age at  the  time of commission of offence.

Party Name/

SLP No.

Allegations Reasons for acquittal Consideration by  the Screening Committee

Ajay Kumar  SLP  (C) No.23855 /16

• FIR  under Sections  323, 307  and  34 IPC.

• Inflicted severe injuries to the sons of the complainant by  inflicting blows  with hockey  sticks and  kicks  and fist  blows  to them.

• Delay of four days in  lodging  the complaint.

• Prosecution  could not come out with clear motive.

• Two  witnesses were  withheld  by the prosecution.

• Benefit  of  doubt given  to  the accused.

• Ajay  Kumar has  been involved  in commission of  heinous bodily injury.   

• Acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt.   

Paramjee t Singh  SLP (C)No.237 26/16

• FIR  under Sections  323 and 506 IPC.

• Appeared at a satsang  along with  other accused. Started

• Complainant/solit ary  eye  witness admitted  the evidence  but denied  the involvement  of accused.

• Stated  that

• Accused acquitted as  the solitary  eye witness turned hostile.  

• Considered

Page No. 14 of 15

creating hindrance  in the  same  and thereafter upon  the complainant.

• Trying  to  stop him gave knife blows  to  the complainant.

• Caused  injury to  other persons  with iron rod.

• Threatened  to kill  the persons with a pistol.

assailants  were unidentified persons.

• Stated  his signatures  were obtained by police on blank papers.

the same to be a case of benefit  of doubt.

Ombir  SLP(C) No.8905/ 17

• FIR  under Sections  323, 354,  506/34 IPC.

• Allegation  is that  Ombir along  with other co-accused persons  in furtherance  of their  common intention outraged  the modesty  of one  Sudesh (complainant).

• Caused hurt to her,  after which  the complainant was  admitted in the hospital.

• The  complainant and  one  Pradeep (PW2)  has  turned hostile  and therefore prosecution evidence  was closed  and  the accused acquitted.

• The accused was acquitted as  the complainan t  did  not support  the case  of  the prosecution .   

• The accused has committed offence  of outraging modesty  of woman  and has  been acquitted on  the benefit  of doubt.

Page No. 15 of 15

15. From  the  above  details,  we  find  that  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 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.  As

pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each

and every case and reasonings for  their  acquittal  and took

decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of

Constable in Chandigarh Police.  The procedure followed is as

per guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is to ensure

that  only  persons  with  impeccable  character  enters  police

force.  While so, the court cannot substitute its views for the

decision of the Screening Committee.

Page No. 16 of 15

16. On behalf of the respondents, much reliance was placed

upon  Joginder  Singh  v.  Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh  and

Others (2015) 2 SCC 377.  In the said case, the appellant

thereon was charged under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and

307  IPC  but  acquitted  by  the  trial  court  holding  that  the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against

him since complainant as well as injured eye witnesses failed

to identify the assailants and the complainant had stated that

his  signature  was  obtained  on  a  blank  sheet  by  the

Investigating Officer.  The case involved was a family dispute.

In such facts and circumstances, this Court held that acquittal

of appellant Joginder Singh was an honourable acquittal and

hence, he should not be denied appointment to the post in

question.   The  decision  in  Joginder  Singh  case  does  not

advance the case of the respondents herein.

17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and

high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized.

As held in  Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening

Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.  In the

case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of

Page No. 17 of 15

the Screening Committee is  mala fide.   The decision of the

Screening Committee that the respondents are not  suitable

for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for

interference.  The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view,

erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee

and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

18. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the

appeals are allowed.  The cancellation of candidature of the

respondents is upheld.  No costs.

…....………………………..J.              (R. BANUMATHI)

…....………………………..J.      (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

New Delhi; January 08, 2018

Page No. 18 of 15