Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition challenging petitioner’s rejection from appointment as Sub-Inspector due to past FIRs registered against him during his student life, which resulted in acquittals, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., found the petitioner eligible for appointment and held that the petitioner should not be denied employment merely due to past acquittals, especially when he was a juvenile at the time of the incidents.
“Youth need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual’s future.”
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner aspired to be appointed as a Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander and sought a writ directing the respondents to consider his candidature for the said post, pursuant to the advertisement dated 03-02-2021. The petitioner successfully cleared the selection process; however, he was denied an appointment due to three past FIRs registered against him during his student life, all of which resulted in acquittals.
A coordinate bench of the High Court, through an interim order dated 20-09-2024, directed that one post be kept vacant pending the resolution of the case. The petitioner filed a representation dated 19-10-2023 requesting reconsideration, but the Departmental Committee rejected his candidature on 03-10-2023, citing his criminal history and non-honorable acquittal.
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner contended that he was acquitted in all criminal cases, albeit by benefit of doubt or compromise, and therefore should not be disqualified. It was argued that similarly placed candidates were appointed despite having been acquitted under similar circumstances, thereby making his candidature rejection as discriminatory. The petitioner cited Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (CWP No.9808 of 2003), where it was held that an acquittal, regardless of the basis, should not automatically disqualify a candidate. It was further asserted that the impugned rejection violates the principle of reformative justice, especially considering that the cases occurred during his juvenile years.
Respondent’ Contentions
The respondents maintained that the petitioner’s acquittals were not “honorable” but were granted based on compromise or benefit of doubt, reflecting an adverse inference on his character. It was contended that the Departmental Committee found that the petitioner had been involved in successive criminal cases (2012, 2013, and 2015), indicating a pattern of criminal behavior inconsistent with the standards required for law enforcement officers. The respondents relied on Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347, where the Supreme Court upheld the employer’s discretion to reject a candidate based on past criminal involvement, even if acquitted. It was further argued that the appointment of police officers requires impeccable integrity, and any criminal antecedents raise legitimate concerns regarding the petitioner’s suitability.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
The Court noted that the application form only required disclosure of conviction history, not prior acquittals and since the petitioner was acquitted before the application process, he was correct in stating that he was not an “ex-prisoner.” The Court noted that the Screening Committee did not make any specific findings regarding the nature of the allegations against the petitioner or whether they impinged upon his moral integrity.
The Court further stated that “there is no quibble about the proposition that a person who wishes to join the police force must be having an impeccable character and integrity and if the offence committed involves any moral turpitude, then the employer is entitled to reject the candidature given the sensitive nature of job which the disciplinary forces are meant for.”
In Court noted that in Rakesh Yadav v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 7502, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reinstated a police official who had omitted past criminal cases from his application form as they arose from a petty family feud. The Court emphasised on the principle of proportionality and stated that minor indiscretions committed by juveniles should not permanently tarnish their future.
“A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions … A punitive approach that permanently brands young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society.”
The Court relied on Shashi Kumar v. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, 2004 SCC OnLine P&H 1159, and noted that Indian criminal jurisprudence does not differentiate between an “honourable acquittal” and an acquittal based on doubt or compromise. The Court asserted that every acquittal should be treated equally, as the legal system presumes innocence until proven guilty.
The Court referred to Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) which removes disqualification for juveniles who were tried and acquitted. The Court asserted that, in the light of Section 24 of JJ Act, “a mechanism must be devised in juvenile justice system by expungement of records for minor offenses committed by youth. This will enable their easier rehabilitation and also prevent youthful mistakes from becoming lifelong barriers to personal and professional growth.”
The Court stated that while an employer has discretion to assess character, such discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and in line with constitutional principles. The Court stated that, in the petitioner’s case, there is no finding that his conduct involved moral turpitude or that his past offences impeded police service duties. The Court further stated that the petitioner had no criminal record after the said cases, thereby showing that he had reformed. Moreover, in the present case, the petitioner’s candidature was simply rejected on the ground that his acquittal is not an honourable acquittal.
Court’s Decision
The Court stated that the interim order dated 20-09-2024 ensured that one post remained vacant during the pendency of the case. The Court asserted the petitioner, having successfully competed in the selection process, is entitled to be considered for appointment.
The Court directed the respondents to carry out the necessary exercise within 30 days from the date the petitioner approaches them with a web print of the order. The Court directed to apply the principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’, meaning the petitioner will not receive financial benefits for the period he was out of service. However, the Court directed that the petitioner will receive notional benefits, including seniority, from the date his counterparts were appointed through the same selection process.
[Vikash Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 396, Decided on 19-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sanjay Nahar and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Sandeep Soni for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG, Counsel for the Respondents
