HC asks Centre to reconsider ITBP cop’s dismissal: Rules about govt jobs to those acquitted in serious cases

Although the expression “moral turpitude” is not defined anywhere, it means “anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals and implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with a particular conduct,” the top court had observed in P. Mohanasundaram vs. the President (2013).

What is this case?

In “Deepak Kumar vs. Union of India,” the petitioner was appointed as a constable on compassionate grounds in 2022.

However, Kumar’s appointment was cancelled by the authorities when he revealed his acquittal in a criminal case in 2018, registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which entails punishment for penetrative sexual assault. Besides this, he was also charged under various IPC sections, including those relating to causing hurt by poison, kidnapping, and criminal intimidation, among others.

Despite being cleared of all charges by a Kaithal court in 2019, Kumar’s appointment was cancelled due to his involvement in the case, citing a policy issued by the Home Ministry for appointments in the Central Armed Police Forces for persons against whom criminal cases were registered or under trial or inquiry.

“Such candidates against whom chargesheet in a criminal case has been filed in the court and the charges fall in the category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though later on acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt or acquitted for the reasons that the witness have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person(s), he/she will generally not be considered suitable for appointment in the CAPF”, the policy said.

How are honourable acquittals different from acquittals based on the benefit of doubt?

Citing its 2023 ruling in Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, the court said that expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted”, are not to be understood as magic incantations. It emphasised that courts are supposed to look into judgements of acquittal while adjudicating departmental proceedings. Asking the court to refrain from being carried away by the mere use of such terminology, the court said it is obliged to examine the ruling’s substance and not go by the form of expression used.

Similarly, in Bhag Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank Baldev Singh (2005), a two-judge SC bench ruled that mere use of the expression “benefit of doubt” or “not proved beyond reasonable doubt” by the trial or appellate courts cannot be permitted to convert an acquittal on the ground of no evidence to something less than that.

Another two-judge bench of the top court in Joginder Singh vs UT of Chandigarh, while dealing with the appointment of a constable, held that acquittal of a person is an “honourable” acquittal in every sense and purpose. “A candidate should not be deprived from being appointed to the post, in the public employment, by declaring him as unsuitable to the post even though he was acquitted in the criminal case registered against him,” the court said.

What is the law on appointing candidates involved in criminal cases?

A three-judge bench of the top court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) dealt with the appointment of a candidate involved in a criminal case.

It ruled that information given to the employer about a candidate’s conviction, acquittal, arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service, must be true and without suppression or false information. For conviction in cases that aren’t trivial, the employer may cancel the employee’s candidature or terminate his services.

However, “if acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee,” the court said underlining that final decision remains with the employer.

Answering a similar question in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India (2023), the court said “acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post” and it would be still open to the employer to consider their antecedents and examine their suitability as a candidate.

However, in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhupendra Yadav (2023), the SC said that the “yardstick” to be applied in cases where the appointment sought relates to a law enforcement agency “ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy.”

What did the court rule in this case?

In its January 9 ruling, the court concluded that “if acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude extending benefit of reasonable doubt, the employer may consider all relevant facts available” before deciding.

Noting that the petitioner in the present case “voluntarily and truthfully” disclosed the concluded criminal case, the court directed the Centre to reconsider his appointment.

Adding that “it is very difficult” to get a government job in the country, the court said the petitioner’s appointment was neither his fundamental nor vested right, but denying him an appointment and ignoring his honesty in disclosing credentials would amount to “indirect punishment for an offence in which he has been acquitted.”