Background

The petitioner was accused of robbery on July 12, 2011 and an FIR was lodged against him. He was charged with offenses under sections 398 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner was finally acquitted on 8 November 2012 because the The prosecution was unable to establish its case due to lack of evidence.

Later, in 2017, the petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) (Male) in Delhi Police, in the Delhi Police Examination 2017, which was to be conducted by the Selection Commission of staff. The petitioner was declared provisionally selected for the post on November 3, 2018 as per the final DPE result issued by the CSE. However, certain formalities such as character check, background checks of candidates and verification of documents were required. The petitioner had informed the authorities about the filing of the FIR and his acquittal at the time of his application for the said post.

The petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why his application was liable to be rejected in view of the implication of his name in the FIR. He responded that the charges against him were false and that he had been honorably acquitted of the offenses charged.

However, despite the response, the petitioner’s appointment as SI was canceled on September 24, 2019, on the basis that the petitioner’s acquittal was possible due to the failure of the prosecution to establish the case against him, because no independent police witnesses had joined and all the POWs were police officials. Meanwhile, the selection committee also observed that the petitioner was accused of a serious offense and his “criminal tendency with lack of respect for law” made him unsuitable for appointment as a police officer.

Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the applicant approached the Central Administrative Court. The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh v Bunty, Commissioner of Police v Raj Kumar and UOI v Methu Meda and made certain observations. It observed that the selection committee could recommend the case of a candidate involved in criminal proceedings and acquitted by the competent court after careful consideration. The Tribunal concluded that there was no deficiency in the order quashing the appointment of the Applicant and therefore dismissed the application.

Finally, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Disputes of the parties:

The applicant’s lawyer referred to certain paragraphs of the single judge’s judgment, establishing that the applicant was acquitted because the prosecution was unable to establish a case against the applicant and not because he benefited from the benefit of the doubt. Calling the prosecution’s case “highly doubtful”, counsel argued that there were significant inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses and that there was no explanation as to why none independent witness had not been contacted.

To justify the arguments put forward, the Council relied on the judgments MAhesh Kumar vs UOI, Joginder Singh vs UT Chandigarh And Pramod Singh Kirar v State of M.P.

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel contended that in such cases the decision of the selection committee should be followed, especially when the appointment was for the Delhi Police.

Conclusions of the Court:

The Court referred to the Standing Order which specified the guidelines in Section 3, stating that an appointment in the Delhi Police could be canceled even in the event of acquittal or dismissal of the candidate in the case criminal and that acquittal would not necessarily qualify the candidate for appointment to the post. In accordance with the Regulations, the Selection Committee, when deciding on issues of nomination of candidates, must consider:

a) the background of the candidate,

(b) the suitability of the candidate for appointment,

(c) whether the candidate was acquitted honorably or on “compromise/benefit of doubt/witnesses turned hostile”,

d) the nature and seriousness of the accusation brought against the candidate.

The Court further held that the Rules distinguished between honorable acquittal, acquittal on compromise, benefit of doubt and witnesses turned hostile.

Observing that the Tribunal found the Applicant unfit for the post after adhering to the principles mentioned in the Rules, the Court referred to certain important decisions, including Mahesh Kumar v UO, Joginder Singh v UT of Chandigarh, Pramod Singh Kirar v State MP, State of Rajasthan v Love Kush Meena, State MP v Bhupendra Yadav and several others.

Relying on the aforesaid judgments, the Court observed that the Supreme Court held that candidates who obtained an honorable acquittal by the Court could claim a right to appointment while on the other hand, candidates who were acquitted because the prosecution could not establish their case or the witnesses had turned hostile, the candidate could not claim this right.

The Court held that in the case being decided, it was important to determine the grounds on which the candidate was acquitted.

Going into details of how the candidate was acquitted, the Court held that in the present case, the prosecution had “miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt” and that the applicant was entitled to acquittal. Moreover, since the ASJ had clearly stated that the petitioner was innocent of the allegations, the Court found that the case was undoubtedly false and untenable. The Court said that there was no evidence to support the allegations made against the petitioner.

Furthermore, the Court considered that the selection commission did not appreciate all the facts of the case and only adopted a global view of the ASJ judgment, acquitting the applicant.

Stating that the petitioner’s acquittal was “clean”, the Court observed that the Selection Commission’s decision was taken on the basis of presumption and that it did not appreciate the judgment of the ASJ.

Making these observations, the Court held that the selection committee had failed to exercise discretion and therefore set aside the decision of the Tribunal directing the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of SI.

As a result, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: MANISH SAINI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. Manisha Parmar and Mr. Kapil Chaudhary, Advocates

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Kshitij Chhabra

Click here to download the order/judgment