Gist of the
Supreme Court Decision in Civil Appeal
No.4842,4956/2013
Civil Appeal
No.
4842/2013 Commissioner of
Police(Appellant) vs.Mehar Singh(Respondent)
Civil
Appeal No. 4965/2013 Commissioner of Police(Appellant) vs.Shani
Kumar (Respondent)
JJ
G.S.Sanghvi and Ranjana P.desai {J
Ranjana P.Desai}
-------------------------------------------------
…..It bears
repetition to state that while deciding
whether a person against whom a criminal case was registered and who was
later acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in the police force what is relevant is the
nature of offence,the extent of hi s involvement,whether the acquittal was a
clean acquittal or an acquittal giving benfit of doubt……….and the propensity of
such person to indulge in similar activities in future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The
expressions ‘honourable acquittal’ ‘acquitted of blame’ and ‘fully exonerated’
are unknown to Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code .
………………………………
The Doctrine
of Equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not
envisage negative equality.It is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud
because it embodies a positive concept.
……………………
In the
first case an FIR was registered against Mehar Singh in 2004 under sections 147,341,427
and 323 of the IPC on the complaint of Ramji Lal that his bus No.RJ 18P 0493
was vandalized and the driver and conductor of the bus were beaten up by the
accused and his associates for asking for tickets. Some persons who tried to
intervene also sustained injuries in the incident. Mehar Singh and the complainant later reached a compromise
and Mehar Singh was acquitted of the offences of sections 323,341 and 427 on
the basis of the compromise. He was also acquitted of the offence of section
147 for want of evidence as witnesses turned hostile.
In 2009 Mehar Singh applied for the post of
constable in Delhi police and in his application disclosed the above facts.He
was provisionally selected subject to verification of character and
antecedents. During verification his involvement in a criminal case was
examined by a Screening Committee constituted by Commissioner of Police,Delhi. The Screening Committee concluded that Mehar Singh had a violent
nature and scant respect for law and did not recommend his case for
appointment.He was issued a show cause notice by DCP(Appointment) and finding
his reply not satisfactory he issued an order that in totality of
circumstances he was not fit for appointment as a constable.
CAT,New Delhi
ordered appointment of Mehar Singh but Delhi police filed a writ in the Delhi
High Court.The writ was dismissed. The Delhi
police filed an appeal(SLP) before the Supreme Court.
The facts
of the second case are that a criminal case under sections 307,504 and 506 of
the IPC was registered against Shani Kumar.
He applied for the post of constable in Delhi police in2009 and disclosed the
fact in his application. He was provisionally selected. On 14.5.2010 he was
acquitted on benefit of doubt. On 3.3.2011 he was issued a show cause notice why
his candidature be not cancelled as he along with co-accused was found involved
in the offence of attempt to murder with
deadly weapons. His candidature was cancelled after considering his reply which
was found inadequate. CAT,New Delhi ordered his appointment and writ petition
by Delhi police in the High Court was dismissed.
It was
argued by the respondents that Rule 6 of Delhi Police Rules which specifies the
grounds of ineligibility for appointment to Delhi police does not mention
criminal antecedent as a ground of ineligibility.The Court observed “..to
conclude from this that instances of moral turpitude ,however grave, could be
overlooked because they do not find mention in Rule 6would be absurd.”The Court
observed that Standing Order 398/2010 issued by Commissioner of Police, Delhi
empowers Delhi police to take appropriate decision in such cases.
The Court
held that Mehar Singh’s ‘acquittal can never be described as an acquittal on
merits after a full-fledged trial. Respondent –Mehar Singh cannot secure entry in the police force
by portraying the acquittal as an
honourable acquittal. Pertinently, there is no discussion on merits of the case
in this order. Respondent –Mehar Singh-has not been exonerated after evaluation of evidence.
In the case
of Shani Kumar the Court stated that ‘The order dated 14.5.2010 passed by the
Sessions Judge,Muzaffarnagar in the case
of Shani Kumar shows that the complainant and the injured person did not
support the prosecution case. They were declared hostile. This again is not a clean
acquittal. Use of firearms in this manner is a serious matter. For entry in the
police force acquittal order based on benefit of doubt in a serious case of
this nature is bound to act as an impediment.’
The
Court further observed, “…It bears
repetition to state that while deciding whether a person against whom a
criminal case was registered and who was later acquitted or discharged should
be appointed to a post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature of offence, the extent of his
involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by
giving benefit of doubt because the witnesses turned hostile or because of some
serious flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge
in similar activities in future. The decision , in our opinion can only be
taken by the Screening Committee created for that purpose…. .If the Screening Committee’s decision is not
mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations, then it cannot be
questioned.”
The honorable
Court observed, “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 taking to the life of crimes poses a threat
to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order has, therefore,
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.---”
The Court
further stated , “The Screening Committee’s proceedings have been assailed as
being arbitrary, unguided and unfettered.
…..Certain instances have been pointed out where allegedly persons
involved in serious offences have been recommended for appointment by the
Screening Committee. It is well settled that
to such cases the doctrine of equality
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not attracted. This
doctrine does not envisage negative equality (Fuljit Kaur). It is not meant to
perpetuate illegality or fraud because it embodies a positive concept.” (p-29)
The Court
held, “In the ultimate analysis we are of the view that the opinion formed by
the Screening Committee in both these cases which is
endorsed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Appointment) Delhi that both the
respondents are not suitable for being appointed in Delhi police force does not
merit any interference . It is legally sustainable. The Tribunal and the
High Court, in our view , erred in setting aside the order of cancellation of
respondent’s candidature. In the circumstances the appeals are allowed. The
orders of Delhi High Court impugned in both the appeals are set aside. The
cancellation of the candidature of the respondents—Mehar Singh and Shani Kumar
is upheld.” (p-31)
………….
P.S.—The Honorable
Court also commented on the concept of ‘honorable
acquittal’ . They observed, “The expression ‘honorable acquittal was considered by this Court in S.Samuthiram. …..Referring to the judgement in RBI,New
Delhi vs Bhopal Singh Panchal……This
Court observed that the expressions ‘honorable
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 ‘honorably acquitted’. This
Court expressed that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of
prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges leveled
against the accused , it can possibly be said that the accused was ‘honorably acquitted’.” (p-21)
………………
