Can a person with criminal past be denied government job? Allahabad High Court explains

“If the charges are not serious in nature and the final reports are filed in such cases, the accused persons should not be deprived of for getting the job because of pending consideration of such final reports,” the court observed in its order dated May 21.

Justice Shree Prakash Singh granted relief to the petitioner.

Two pending criminal cases

• After receiving the offer of appointment, the petitioner accepted and duly filled out the attestation form, wherein the petitioner disclosed the details of two pending criminal cases against him.
• The joining letters were issued to the shortlisted candidates, but the petitioner was not issued the joining letter, and on being asked, he was informed that he would be issued the joining letter after completion of the police verification.
• One of the cases against the petitioner was under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, in which he had already been declared a juvenile delinquent.
• The second was an FIR under cheating and forgery provisions, in which the investigating officer had filed a final closure report before the trial court.
• The court observed that the Juvenile Justice Act clearly protects juveniles from suffering disqualification due to criminal proceedings or even conviction.
• Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the bench reiterated that even a conviction for offences committed during juvenility cannot be held against a person while seeking employment.
• “It is abundantly clear that not only the pendency of a criminal case against the juvenile delinquent, but, even if he is convicted, the same would have no bearing so far as the appointment in the job, government or private is concerned,” the court observed.

Irreparable loss

It further added that once an investigation is completed in a criminal case, which results in the filing of a final report, prima facie shows that there is no involvement of such accused or person in the alleged crime, unless such final report is rejected by the trial court.

The court also observed that if the trial court accepts the final report at a belated stage, the accused person would suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated by any means.

“It is of worth consideration that if the charges are not serious in nature and the final reports are filed in such cases, the accused persons should not be deprived of for getting the job because of pending consideration of such final reports,” the court remarked.

It noted that if the final report is rejected and the accused person is convicted, the legal recourse is always open for the government/department concerned to dispense with the services of such an employee.

The court observed that no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner in such circumstances where the trial court has failed to pass any order on the final report submitted by the investigating officer.

The court remarked that the truthfulness of allegations against an accused can only be determined after adjudication of the evidence, which may ultimately result either in conviction or acquittal.

The bench noted that deprivation of livelihood carries far-reaching consequences for an accused and is neither supported by common sense nor by law.

Emphasising the human impact of legal processes, the court said laws are meant to bring order to society and cannot be applied in a vacuum without considering their effect on individuals.

The court held that the petitioner could not be made to suffer indefinitely and wait endlessly for employment merely because a final report remained pending adjudication before the trial court.

Allowing the petition, the court directed ESIC to issue the joining letter to the petitioner within 30 days, ignoring the pendency of the criminal cases.