# Riyasat Ali v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 671
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-26
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 8313 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/riyasat-ali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47138
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Appointment/Selection -
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 306, 307,
506, 323, 324, 504 - Examination of
suitability of candidates for appointment -
Role of Criminal Antecedents - Verification
of character and antecedents is one of the
important features in service jurisprudence
so as to find out whether a selected
candidate is suitable to the post. The purpose
of the enquiry is to determine suitability of a
candidate to hold office. The police is a disciplined
force which is charged with the duty to uphold the
law and order in the State. Personnel in uniform
belonging to disciplined forces, are expected to
bear
impeccable
character
and
possess
unimpeachable integrity. Adherence to these
standards is essential to enable them to discharge
their duties effectively, and retain the confidence
of the public at large. (Para 22)

Criminal antecedents are accepted in law as
reliable guides for an employer to assess character
traits and evaluate the suitability of a candidate for
appointment. (Para 25)

B. Nature of proceeding/Scope of Enquiry
into
sustainability
for
appointment
-
Determination of suitability of a candidate
for
appointment
is
an
administrative
decision which is part of the recruitment
process.
The
process
of
evaluating
suitability
for
appointment
is
not
an
adjudication of guilt or innocence as in a
criminal case. Nor is it a quasi judicial
process or a civil law proceeding. (Para 26)

C. Material for consideration by the
authority - In public employment, it is
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inherent to acquire diverse material from
different sources for formation of opinion
in regard to the suitability of a candidate.
This material may be reliable and conclusive or
credible but probative. Both kinds of material
are liable to be considered. One such source is
the record of criminal proceedings against the
candidate. (Para 27 to 29)

D.
Method
of
Evaluation
of
Material/applicability
of
Standards
of
Evidence - While the standard of proof in a
criminal case is the proof beyond all
reasonable
doubt,
the
proof
in
a
departmental proceeding is preponderance
of probabilities. An acquittal based on
benefit of doubt would not stand on a par
with a clean acquittal on merit after a fullfledged trial, where there is no indication of
the witnesses being won over. (Para 38)

Weight is given by judicial authorities to the
nature of acquittal over the mere fact of
acquittal. Acquittals are classified different
categories-honourable acquittal, acquittal as if the
prosecution did not happen, acquittal on benefit of
doubt, acquittal on account of witnesses turning
hostile. 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. (Para
35, 38)

Acquittal by the Criminal Court happens when
eviden

## Text

_Characters 0–39,925 of 62,553. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39925 for what follows._

6 All. Riyasat Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
671
from that place until the laden weight has
been reduced and that the liability to pay
charges of off-loading of excess weight has
to be paid by the driver or the person
incharge of the vehicle. The inaction of the
Regional Transport Authorities to ensure
compliance of Section 114 (1) of the Act
read with Section 194(1) is, thus, writ large
on the face of the record.

22. The State Government is,
therefore, directed to issue necessary
notification to remove this discrepancy so
as to comply with the directions of the
Apex Court in Paramjit Bhasin (supra) in
confirmity with the Motor Vehicles Act
and the rules framed thereunder.

23. The answering respondent namely
the State Transport Commissioner, U.P.,
Lucknow, is, therefore, directed to bring
this order to the knowledge of the State
Government.

24. A copy of this order shall also be
sent to the Principal Secretary, Transport
Office, Government of U.P., Lucknow
through the Registrar General, High Court,
Allahabad for intimation.

25. The compliance of this order shall
be intimated by the Principal Secretary
concerned to the Registrar General, High
Court, Allahabad within a period of one
month
of
from
the
date
of
the
communication for record of this Court.

With the above observations and
directions, the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2021)06ILR A671
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.03.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-A No. 8313 of 2020

Riyasat Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, S.C.

A. Service Law - Appointment/Selection -
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 306, 307,
506, 323, 324, 504 - Examination of
suitability of candidates for appointment -
Role of Criminal Antecedents - Verification
of character and antecedents is one of the
important features in service jurisprudence
so as to find out whether a selected
candidate is suitable to the post. The purpose
of the enquiry is to determine suitability of a
candidate to hold office. The police is a disciplined
force which is charged with the duty to uphold the
law and order in the State. Personnel in uniform
belonging to disciplined forces, are expected to
bear
impeccable
character
and
possess
unimpeachable integrity. Adherence to these
standards is essential to enable them to discharge
their duties effectively, and retain the confidence
of the public at large. (Para 22)

Criminal antecedents are accepted in law as
reliable guides for an employer to assess character
traits and evaluate the suitability of a candidate for
appointment. (Para 25)

B. Nature of proceeding/Scope of Enquiry
into
sustainability
for
appointment
-
Determination of suitability of a candidate
for
appointment
is
an
administrative
decision which is part of the recruitment
process.
The
process
of
evaluating
suitability
for
appointment
is
not
an
adjudication of guilt or innocence as in a
criminal case. Nor is it a quasi judicial
process or a civil law proceeding. (Para 26)

C. Material for consideration by the
authority - In public employment, it is
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inherent to acquire diverse material from
different sources for formation of opinion
in regard to the suitability of a candidate.
This material may be reliable and conclusive or
credible but probative. Both kinds of material
are liable to be considered. One such source is
the record of criminal proceedings against the
candidate. (Para 27 to 29)

D.
Method
of
Evaluation
of
Material/applicability
of
Standards
of
Evidence - While the standard of proof in a
criminal case is the proof beyond all
reasonable
doubt,
the
proof
in
a
departmental proceeding is preponderance
of probabilities. An acquittal based on
benefit of doubt would not stand on a par
with a clean acquittal on merit after a fullfledged trial, where there is no indication of
the witnesses being won over. (Para 38)

Weight is given by judicial authorities to the
nature of acquittal over the mere fact of
acquittal. Acquittals are classified different
categories-honourable acquittal, acquittal as if the
prosecution did not happen, acquittal on benefit of
doubt, acquittal on account of witnesses turning
hostile. 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. (Para
35, 38)

Acquittal by the Criminal Court happens when
evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Failure to prove an offence before a Court of law in
a criminal trial may not reduce the probative value
of said evidence before the competent authority in
a recruitment process. Such evidence when placed
before the competent authority may constitute
credible material of probative value to render a
candidate unsuitable for appointment. The scope
of discretion of the competent authority will also
depend on the nature of findings of the Court on
the same evidence. The employer can take into
consideration all relevant facts to take an
appropriate decision as to the fitness of an
incumbent for appointment/continuance in service.
It is thus well-settled that acquittal in a
criminal case does not automatically entitle
him for appointment to the post.. (Para 34,
40, 42)
In service matters the consequences of an
acquittal by a Criminal Court have to be
applied in a nuanced manner and not in a
pedantic fashion. The competent authority is not
always bound by the findings of the Court, nor is it
invariably constrained by the opinion of the
investigation officer. Criminal prosecution of an
individual before the Court of law is to bring an
offender of criminal laws to justice, and to punish
the guilty. The object of the competent authority
in a recruitment process is only to determine the
suitability of a candidate to hold a public post.
(Para 30, 32, 39, 51)

E. The duty of an employer to evaluate the
suitability of a candidate for appointment
is paired with the right of the candidate
for a fair consideration of his credentials.
Selected candidates do not acquire an
indefeasible right to be appointed. The
authority has to adopt a procedure which
is consistent with principles of natural
justice. Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates
to apply for recruitment and on their selection
they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless
the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the
State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any
of the vacancies. However, it does not mean
that the State has the licence of acting in an
arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the
vacancies has to be taken bona fide for
appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any
of them are filled up, the State is bound to
respect the comparative merit of the candidates,
as reflected at the recruitment test, and no
discrimination can be permitted. (Para 46, 48,
53 to 57, 71)

F. Line of Enquiry - Aggravating and
mitigating factors - Gravity and heinous
nature of offence or offences involving
moral turpitude, multiplicity of criminal
prosecutions, inference of criminal traits
or tendency of involvement in criminal
offences
are
aggravating
factors.
Whereas,
indiscretions
of
youth
and
fallibility of human nature are mitigating
factors. (Para 60 to 68)

Failure
to
disclose
past
criminal
prosecutions in the affidavit of verification
ipso facto will not lead to automatic
6 All. Riyasat Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
673
cancellation of appointment. The authority
has to independently consider the consequences
of suppression of facts in each case. Equally
disclosure of criminal cases by a candidate
cannot guarantee appointment. The impact
of criminal antecedents on the suitability for
appointment has to investigated in the manner
consistent with the preceding narrative. (Para
70)

In the facts of this case, the acquittal of the
petitioner cannot be held to be honourable.
The multiplicity of criminal cases constitute
aggravating circumstances which compelled
the competent authority to find against the
petitioner. Further the crime was of a
heinous nature. The manner of consideration
of the aforesaid material by the competent
authority in the impugned is lawful and the
conclusions
are
reasonable.
Material
furnished by the above said case alone was
sufficient to support the finding of the
competent authority regarding the nonsuitability of the petitioner for appointment.
(Para 78, 79, 86)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2016) 8 SCC
471 (Para 20)

2. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & ors.
Vs Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 (Para 23)

3. B. Ramakrishna Yadav & ors. Vs The
Superintendent of Police & ors. , AIR 2016 AP
147 (Para 26)

4. R.P. Kapur Vs U.O.I., AIR 1964 SC 787
(Para 36)

5. Management of R.B.I. Vs Bhopal Singh
Panchal, 1994 (1) SCC 541 (Para 37)

6.
Inspector
General
of
Police
Vs
S.
Samthiram, (1994) 1 SCC 541 (Para 38)

7. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration
& ors. Vs Pradeep Kumar & ors., (2018) 1 SCC
797 (Para 40)

8. St. of M. P. Vs Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC
591 (Para 41)

9. St. of M. P. Vs Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2018) 18
SCC 733 (Para 41)

10. St. of M.P. Vs Bunty, 2019 SCC OnLine SC
430 (Para 42)

11. Shankarshan Das Vs U.O.I., 1991 (3) SCC
47 (Para 48)

12. State of Bihar Vs The Secretariat Assistant
Successful Examinees Union, 1994 (1) SCC 126
(Para 49)

13. Mohammad Imran Vs St. of Mah., 2019 (17)
SCC 696 (Para 53)

14. Commissioner of Police & ors. Vs Sandeep
Kumar, 2011 (4) SCC 644 (Para 65)

15. St. of Raj. & ors. Vs Love Kush Meena,
(2021) SCC OnLine 252 (Para 76)

Books Referred:

1. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Edition, by
John S. James (Para 13)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
01.06.2019, passed by Superintendent of
Police, Rampur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The petitioner has assailed the
order
dated
01.06.2019
passed
by
respondent no. 4- Superintendent of Police,
Rampur,
cancelling
his
selection
as
Constable in the U.P. Police.

2. The judgment is being structured in
the following conceptual framework to
facilitate the discussion:

I.
Introduction
II.
Submissions of learned counsels
III. Facts
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
IV. Legal perspectives
I
V.
i.
Examination of suitability of candidates for appointment
A Material for formation of opinion before the authority
B Nature of proceedings
C Standard of evidence & Impact of chargesheet
D Procedure of enquiry

I
V.
ii
Line of Enquiry by the authorities
A. Consideration of criminal cases
B. Mitigating factors
I
V.
iii
Decision of the authority
V.
Analysis of facts and conclusions

I. Introduction:

3. The recruitment process for various
posts in the U.P. Police was initiated by
notification no. PRPB-1(82)/2015. The
petitioner applied in response to the said
notification and participated in the selection
process. The petitioner was selected for
appointment to the post of Constable in the
UP Police.

4. The declaration made by the
petitioner in the affidavit of verification on
11.06.2018 during the recruitment process
disclosed following criminal cases:

"1. मु0 अ0 स0-150/2013, र्ािा-506
आई0 पी0 सी0 थाना टांिा िामपुि, सिकाि
िनाम िब्बू खां आचद न्यायालय श्रीमान मुख्य
न्याचयक मचजस्टरेट महोदय, िामपुि ।

2. मु0 अ0 स0-186/2017, र्ािा-323, 324,
504, 506 आई0 पी0 सी0 थाना टांिा िामपुि,
सिकाि िनाम रियासत आचद न्यायालय श्रीमान
मुख्य न्याचयक मचजस्टरेट महोदय, िामपुि ।"

5.

The
petitioner
was
denied
appointment as Constable. Being aggrieved
the petitioner approached this Court by
instituting a writ petition, registered as Writ
A No. 18058 of 2018, Riyasat Ali Vs. State
of U.P. and Others. The operative portion
of the judgment in Riyasat Ali (supra)
dated 24.08.2018 is extracted hereinunder:

"Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances, noticed above, this petition
stands disposed of, permitting the petitioner
to approach the authority concerned, i.e.,
respondent no. 4, in respect of his
grievance raised before this Court, within a
period of two weeks from the date of
presentation of certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to annex
all materials in support of his claim. In case
such material is placed before the authority
concerned, the same shall be examined, in
accordance with law, and keeping in view
the law laid down by Apex Court in Avtar
Singh (supra). The required consideration
shall be made by the authority concerned
within a period of three months thereafter. "

6. In compliance of the said judgment
dated 24.08.2018 rendered by this Court,
the
suitability
of
the
petitioner
for
appointment as constable in the U.P. Police
was decided by the impugned order dated
01.06.2019.

II. Submissions of learned counsels:

7. Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner had truthfully declared details of
all the criminal cases pending against him
in the affidavit of verification. The
petitioner was falsely nominated as Case
Crime No. 0150 of 2013 in which a
chargesheet under Section 306 I.P.C. was
filed against the petitioner. The acquittal of
the petitioner in the said case, after the
impugned order was passed requires a fresh
consideration of the controversy. The
6 All. Riyasat Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
675
petitioner was acquitted in the second case
by the learned trial court. The authority has
not adopted any standard of evidence while
considering
the
material
against
the
petitioner. In absence of conviction by a
court, appointment cannot be refused. The
petitioner has been honourably acquitted in
both criminal cases.

8. Per contra, Shri Vikram Bahadur
Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the
State of U.P. submits that the petitioner was
named in multiple criminal cases. The
petitioner was not acquitted honourably by
the trial court both the criminal cases. The
material furnished by the said criminal
cases was reliable and duly considered in
the impugned order. The material in the
record before the authority disclosed
involvement of the petitioner in serious
criminal offences.

9. The competent authority gave full
consideration to all material facts in the
right perspective. The conclusions of the
competent authority in the impugned order
are reasonable. Persons with such criminal
profiles are not fit for appointment in the
police
force.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

III. Facts of the case and the
impugned order:

11. The undisputed facts necessary for
adjudication of this controversy can be
prised out from the impugned order.

12. The affidavit sworn by the
petitioner
disclosing
the
criminal
prosecutions faced by him was part of the
recruitment process. The impugned order
dated 01.06.2019 noticing the said affidavit
records the following criminal cases were
registered against the petitioner :

"A. Case Crime No. 150/13, Section
307/506 I.P.C., and;

B. Case Crime No. 186/17, Sections
323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C."

13. In wake of the Government Order
dated 28.04.1958, the competent authority
sought
the
opinion
of
the
District
Magistrate in the matter of criminal
antecedents of petitioner and his suitability
for appointment. The impugned order
referencing the report of the District
Magistrate dated 30.06.2018.

14. The criminal cases are thereafter
discussed in context of the claim of the
petitioner for appointment. A criminal case
was registered against the petitioner as
Case Crime No. 150/13, under Sections
307 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Tanda.
The
offences
disclosed
against
the
petitioner at the registration of the case are
grave in nature. After investigation, a
chargesheet under Section 506 I.P.C. was
filed and the matter is pending before the
learned trial court.

15. The second criminal case,
registered as Case Crime No. 186/17, under
Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and tried
as Criminal Case No. 5101 of 2017, State
Vs.
Riyasat
and
others,
was
then
considered. In the said the petitioner had
been acquitted by the learned trial court.

16. The impugned order notices that
the prosecution case asserts that the
petitioner had attacked the complainant in
his stomach with a knife; and the right hand
fingers of the latter were severed in the
assault. After inflicting the injuries, the
petitioner in the ensuing commotion
escaped along with other accused persons,
but only after threatening the complainant
with death.
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. The competent authority finds that
the acquittal was the result of prosecution
witnesses turning hostile, and compromise
arrived at between the parties. The competent
authority in the impugned order thereafter
concludes that the aforesaid criminal cases
reveal criminal traits which render him
unsuitable for appointment as Constable in
the U.P. Police.

18. The narrative in the impugned order
takes support of various authorities rendered
by the Supreme Court to fortify the said
findings, while rejecting the case of the
petitioner for appointment.

Subsequent event:

19. The petitioner has also brought
some subsequent developments relevant to
the controversy in the record of the writ
petition. It is asserted that criminal case
registered as Case Crime No. 150 of 2013
went to trial as Criminal Case No. 7410 of
2014. The petitioner has been acquitted in the
said criminal case by the learned trial court
by the judgment rendered on 07.02.2020.

IV. Legal perspective:

IV.i. Examination of suitability of
candidates for appointment : Role of
Criminal Antecedents:

20.

The
impact
of
criminal
antecedents on the appointment of a
selected candidate was crystallized in Avtar
Singh v. Union of India and Others1.
However, the submissions made at the bar
expand the scope of the controversy and
require consideration of the contours and
nature of an enquiry by the competent
authority into the criminal antecedents of
the
candidate
and
its
bearing
on
appointment.

21. The purpose and subject matter of
the proceeding, the rights engaged, material
for consideration, and consequences of the
decision, decide the nature of the enquiry
and procedure to be adopted.

22. The purpose of the enquiry is to
determine suitability of a candidate to hold
office. The police is a disciplined force
which is charged with the duty to uphold
the law and order in the State. Personnel in
uniform belonging to disciplined forces, are
expected to bear impeccable character and
possess
unimpeachable
integrity.
Adherence to these standards is essential
to enable them to discharge their duties
effectively, and retain the confidence of the
public at large.

23. The narrative will be fortified by
reference to judicial authorities in point.
The need for appointing persons of
untarnished character in the police force
was underscored in Commissioner of
Police, New Delhi and others Vs. Mehar
Singh2

"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,
6 All. Riyasat Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
677
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 trust
reposed in it and must treat all candidates
with even hand."

24. In B. Ramakrishna Yadav and
others Vs. The Superintendent of Police and
others,3 the Full Bench of Hon'ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh held:

"Verification
of
character
and
antecedents is one of the important features in
service jurisprudence so as to find out
whether a selected candidate is suitable to the
post. Having regard to the antecedents of a
candidate, if appointing authority finds that it
is not desirable to appoint such person, in
particular to a discipline force, it can deny
employment or even terminate such person, if
appointed, within the shortest possible time
from the date of verification of character and
antecedents. This has to be scrupulously
followed in case of recruitment in police
force, it being a disciplined force. As
observed by the Supreme Court in Mehar
Singh (supra), people repose great faith and
confidence in the police force, and therefore,
the selected candidate must be of confidence,
impeccable character and integrity. A person
having criminal antecedents is, undoubtedly,
not fit in this category, more particularly
when he has suppressed the information
about his involvement in criminal case(s)
irrespective of the fact whether the case was
pending or he was acquitted."

25. Criminal antecedents are thus
accepted in law as reliable guides for an
employer to assess character traits and
evaluate the suitability of a candidate for
appointment.

IV.i.-B.
Nature
of
the
proceeding/Scope
of
Enquiry
into
suitability for appointment:

26. Determination of suitability of a
candidate
for
appointment
is
an
administrative decision which is part of the
recruitment
process.
The
process
of
evaluating suitability for appointment is not
an adjudication of guilt or innocence as in a
criminal case. Nor is it a quasi judicial
process or a civil law proceeding.

IV.i-A. Material for consideration
by the authority.

27. In public employment diverse
material for formation of opinion in regard
to the suitability of a candidate is acquired
from different sources.

28. The diversity of material
available with the authority to form its
opinion is inherent in the process of
determining
the
suitability
of
the
candidate.
The
material
before
the
authority may be reliable and conclusive
or credible but probative. Both kinds of
material are liable to be considered.
Material of probative value but credible
worth is not to be discarded, and there is
no impediment in its consideration.
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. One such source is the record of
criminal proceedings against the candidate.
The full inventory of material before the
authority includes the F.I.R., the evidence
collected during the criminal investigation,
chargesheet submitted in court, evidence
emerging during the trial, the judgment
rendered by a court of law. On the foot of
such material, the competent authority can
make its decision on the fitness of the
candidate for appointment.

IV.i.-C. Method of Evaluation of
Material/ applicability of Standards of
evidence:

30. The competent authority is not
always bound by the findings of the court,
nor is it invariably constrained by the opinion
of the investigation officer. The reasons are
not far to seek.

31. The purposes of a criminal
investigation, criminal trial, civil proceeding,
departmental enquiry, are distinct from the
rationale behind the exercise of verification
of criminal antecedents of a candidate for
appointment in a recruitment process. The
nature of rights engaged in the respective
proceedings are also different. The lattermost
proceeding is an executive function, while
former proceedings are judicial and quasi
judicial in nature respectively.

32. Criminal prosecution of an
individual before the court of law is to bring
an offender of criminal laws to justice, and to
punish the guilty. The object of the
competent authority in a recruitment process
is only to determine the suitability of a
candidate to hold a public post.

33. Secondly, strict rules of evidence
apply
to
criminal
prosecution.
The
prosecution can succeed only when it
attains the standard of evidence which
proves the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The competent authority
on the contrary is not constrained by any
such standard of evidence.

34. Acquittal by the criminal court
happens when evidence is not sufficient to
sustain a conviction. Failure to prove an
offence before a court of law in a criminal
trial may not reduce the probative value of
said
evidence
before
the
competent
authority in a recruitment process. Such
evidence when placed before the competent
authority may constitute credible material
of probative value to render a candidate
unsuitable for appointment. The scope of
discretion of the competent authority will
also depend on the nature of findings of the
court on the same evidence.

35. Weight is given by judicial
authorities to the nature of acquittal over
the mere fact of acquittal. Cases in point
accordingly classify acquittals in different
categories-honourable acquittal, acquittal
as if the prosecution did not happen,
acquittal on benefit of doubt, acquittal on
account of witnesses turning hostile.

36. An acquittal in a criminal trial
simplicitor will not lead to an automatic
discharge in departmental proceedings.
This proposition was enunciated in R.P.
Kapur vs. Union of India (UOI)4 in the
following terms:

"9... Take again the case where
suspension
is
pending
criminal
proceedings.
The
usual
ground
for
suspension pending a criminal proceeding
is that the charge is connected with his
position as a government servant or is
likely to embarrass him in the discharge of
his duties or involves moral turpitude. In
6 All. Riyasat Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
679
such a case a public servant may be
suspended pending investigation, enquiry
or trial relating to a criminal charge. Such
suspension also in our opinion is clearly
related to disciplinary matters. If the trial
of
the
criminal
charge
results
in
conviction, disciplinary proceedings are
bound to follow against the public servant
so convicted, even in case of acquittal
proceedings
may
follow
where
the
acquittal is other than honourable. The
usual practice is that where a public servant
is being tried on a criminal charge, the
Government
postpones
holding
departmental enquiry and awaits the result
of the criminal trial and departmental
proceedings follow on the result of the
criminal trial. Therefore, suspension during
investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a
criminal charge is also in our opinion
intimately related to disciplinary matters.
We cannot therefore accept the argument
on behalf of the respondent that suspension
pending a departmental enquiry or pending
investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a
criminal charge is not a disciplinary matter
within the meaning of those words in
Article 314..... (emphasis supplied)

37.

The
distinction
between
honourable acquittal and acquittal based on
benefit of doubt was considered in relation
to the right to reinstatement in service and
other service benefits in Management of
Reserve Bank of India Vs. Bhopal Singh
Panchal5, by laying down the law as
under:

"13.....When the High Court acquitted
the respondent-employee by its order of
November 21, 1977 giving the benefit of
doubt, the Bank rightly refused to reinstate
him in service on the ground that it was not
an honourable acquittal as required by
Regulation 46(4).

15.... It is only if such employee is
acquitted of all blame and is treated by the
competent authority as being on duty
during the period of suspension that such
employee is entitled to full pay and
allowances for the said period."

38. Commissioner of Police, New
Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh6 attempted to
define
the
expression
"honourable
acquittal" after acknowledging that the term
often eludes precise definition. Mehar
Singh (supra) after placing reliance on the
law laid down in Inspector General of
Police Vs. S.
Samuthiram7,
and
RBI vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal8 held:

"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 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
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 [Inspector General of
Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC
598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1
SCC (L&S) 229] . 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 : 1994 SCC
(L&S) 594 : (1994) 26 ATC 619] , 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 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.

34. The respondents are trying to draw
mileage from the fact that in their
application and/or attestation form they
have disclosed their involvement in a
criminal case. We do not see how this fact
improves their case. Disclosure of these
facts in the application/attestation form is
an essential requirement. An aspirant is
expected to state these facts honestly.
Honesty
and
integrity
are
inbuilt
requirements of the police force. The
respondents should not, therefore, expect to
score any brownie points because of this
disclosure. Besides, this has no relevance to
the point in issue. It bears repetition to state
that while deciding whether a person
against
whom
a
criminal
case
was
registered and who was later on acquitted
or discharged should be appointed to a post
in the police force, what is relevant is the
nature of the offence, the extent of his
involvement, whether the acquittal was a
clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving
benefit of doubt because the witnesses
6 All. Riyasat Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
681
turned hostile or because of some serious
flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity
of such person to indulge in similar
activities in future. This decision, in our
opinion, can only be taken by the Screening
Committee created for that purpose by the
Delhi Police. If the Screening Committee's
decision is not mala fide or actuated by
extraneous considerations, then, it cannot
be questioned.

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."

39. The concept of various categories
of acquittals in criminal cases thus evolved
by courts, in the context of service law
jurisprudence
for
the
purposes
of
determining suitability for appointment or
continuance in service. In service matters
the consequences of an acquittal by a
criminal court have to be applied in a
nuanced manner and not in a pedantic
fashion.

40. In Union Territory, Chandigarh
Administration and Others Vs. Pradeep
Kumar and Others9, while holding that an
acquittal in a criminal case was not
conclusive of a candidate's suitability for
appointment it was stated:

"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 [Commr. of Police v. Mehar Singh,
(2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669
: (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910] and Parvez
Khan [State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan, (2015)
2 SCC 591 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 544]
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 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
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
importance of the trust reposed in it and
must examine the candidate with utmost
character.

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 the 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."

41. Following various decisions
including in Mehar Singh (Supra), State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Parvez Khan10, the
Supreme Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar11,
reiterated the said propositions of law.

42. More recently in line with the said
authorities, the Supreme Court in State of
M.P. Vs. Bunty12 unequivocally set forth
as under:

"13. The law laid down in the
aforesaid decisions makes it clear that in
case of acquittal in a criminal case is based
on the benefit of the doubt or any other
technical reason. The employer can take
into consideration all relevant facts to take
an appropriate decision as to the fitness of
an incumbent for appointment/continuance
in service. The decision taken by the
Screening Committee in the instant case
could not have been faulted by the Division
Bench."

43. The value of a chargesheet
submitted by an Investigation Officer in a
court, for the authority considering the
suitability of candidate for appointment
would now merit consideration.

44. The chargesheet submitted before
the court is the result of criminal
investigation by the Investigation Officer.
During investigation of a criminal case the
Investigation Officer has to be responsive
to the standard of evidence required in a
criminal trial.