JOGINDER SINGHversusUNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS.

•                  [2014] 11 S.C.R. 155

                    JOGINDER SINGH                             A·
                             v.
      UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS.
          (Civil Appeal No. 2325 of 2009 etc.)
                  NOVEMBER 11, 2014
                                                               B
     [DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]

    Service Law - Appointment - To the post of Constable
- Denied on the ground that criminal case was initiated
against the candidate - Claim for appointment - Held: The      C
candidate was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and
he had not concealed the fact of criminal case - Hence, his
past conduct would not disqualify the candidate for
appointment- Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Vol. II - r. 12. 18.
                                                               D
    Allowing the appeals, the Court

    HELD: 1. The acquittal of the appellant was an
"honourable" acquittal in every sense and purpose.
Therefore, the appellant should not have been deprived
from being appointed to the post, in the public                E
employment, by declaring him as unsuitable to the post
even though he was honourably acquitted in the criminal
case registered against him. [Para 17] [162-G-H; 163-A]

    Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. S.
                                                               F
Samuthiram 2012 (11) SCR 174: 2013 (1) SCC 598 - relied
on.

    2. There has been no allegation of concealment of
the fact that a criminal case was registered against him
by the appellant. Thus, the appellant had honestly             G
disclosed in his verification application submitted to the
selection authority that there was a criminal case
registered against him and that it ended in an acquittal

                            155                                H
    156     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 11 S.C.R.


A on account of compromise between the parties involved
                                                                    •
  in the criminal case, he cannot be denied an opportunity
  to qualify for any post including the post of a Constable.
  [Para 18] [163-A-C]

        Delhi Administration v. Sushi/ Kumar 1996 (7) Suppl.
B SCR 199:1996 (11) SCC 605; Secretary, Deptt. of Home
   Secy,, A. P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu 2005 (1) SCR 1147:2005
   (2) SCC 746; Commr. of Polipe, Delhi & Anr. v. Dhaval Singh
 ; (1999) 1 sec 246 - relied on.

C       3. Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Vol. II
  clearly indicates that an acquittal in a criminal case will
  qualify him for appointment to the post of Police
  Constable, as the appellant had successfully qualified the
  other requisites required for his selection. Thus, as the
o prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the
  appellant by adducing cogent evidence, therefore, the
  Police authorities cannot be allowed to sit in judgment
  over the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in its
  judgment, wherein the appellant has been honourably
E acquitted. Denying him the appointment to the post of a
  Constable is like a vicarious punishment, which is not
  permissible in law, therefore, the impugned judgment and
  order passed by the High Court is vitiated in law and
  liable to be set aside. [Para 20] [166-E-H]              ·

F       Jqgtar Singh v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
    1993 (3) SCR 77: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCC 49 - relied on.

       4. Thus, the alleged past conduct of the appellant in
  relation to the criminal case will not debar or disqualify
G him for the post of the Constable for which he was
  successfully selected after qualifying the written test,
  medical test and the interview conducted by the selection
  authority. [Para 22] [167-H; 168-A-B]


                                         \
•     JOGINDER SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF
                  CHANDIGARH
                       Case Law Reference:
                                                              157


                                                                      A

    1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 199 Relied on                  Para 9

    2012 (11) SCR 174           Relied on              Para 16

    2005 (1) SCR 1147           Relied on              Para 18        B
    (1999) 1 sec 246            Relied on              Para 18

    1993 (3) SCR 77             Relied on              Para 21

  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2325
of 2009.                                                              C

     From the Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ
Petition No. 5909 CAT of 2003.
                                                                      D
                              WITH

C.A. No. 10126 of 2014.

      Mukesh K. Giri, S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellant.
                                                                      E
      Sangram S. Saran, Abhishek Atrey for the Respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.
30798 of 2008.                                                        F

      2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against
the common judgment and order dated 24.03.2008 passec;l in
Civil Writ Petition No. 5909 CAT of 2003 and Civil Writ Petition
No. 7754 CAT of 2004, by the High Court of Punjab anct
Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the High Court set aside the           G
common order dated 12.3.2003 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (in short "CAT"), Chandigarh, urging
various grounds in support of the same.

      3. As both the matters are identical, for the sake of brevity   H
    158      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.C.R..

A   and convenience, we would deal with the facts of Civil Appeal
    No. 2325 of 2009, which are stated hereunder.

        The respondent-Union Territory of Chandigarh, had invited
  applications from eligible persons for recruitment to the post
  of Constables in the. year 1997. The said selection was
8
  quashed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However,
  in the year 2001, A fresh selection process was started by the
  respondents, as per the decision of the Administration of the
  first respondent wherein it has stated that the candidates who
C had applied in response to the previous advertisement (in
  1997), were exempted from applying afresh.
        The appellant, Joginder Singh, who had also applied in the
  year 1997, was also called in 2001 and was among the 40
  candidates who had applied were declared as successful
D candidates. The appellant was medically examineq and was
  called for an interview as he was found fit for selection to the
  post of Constable. However, after verification of his antecedents
  and character from his native village, it was found that he was
  involved in a case with FIR No. 200 dated 14.04.1998, under
E the provisions of Sections 148/149/323/325/307 IPC a criminal
  case was registered at Police Station Sadar Bhiwani. After the
  trial was conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani,
  the appellant was acquitted from the charges levelled against
  him on 04.10.1999. The appellant filed Original Application
F before the CAT, Chandigarh, for issuing a direction to the
  respondent for issuance of an appointment order in view of his
  selection to the post in the selection process.

       4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh after
  hearing the parties passed an order dated 12.3.2003, allowing
G the Original Application of the appellant and directed the
  respondents to appoint the appellant to the post of Constable
  within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified
  copy of the order.

H
•    JOGINDER SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF
       CHANDIGARH [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
                                                        ,


     5. Aggrieved by the order of the CAT, the respondent-
                                                             159


                                                                    A
Union Territory filed C.W.P. No. 5909 CAT of 2003 before the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh questioning the
correctness of the same. The High Court vide its common order
dated 24.03.2008 has set aside the order of the CAT and
allowed the writ petition.                                          B
     6. The High Court has opined that the order of the CAT
passed in favour of the appellant, suffers from illegality, which
cannot be sustained in law and accordingly set aside the same.
Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant urging
various legal grounds.                                              c
     7. It is the contention of Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, learned
counsel on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was
honourably acquitted from the charges in the criminal
proceedings initiated against him by the State of Punjab and        D
undisputedly, there is no allegation of concealment of the
relevant information to be furnished by the appellant in his
application to the respondents.

     8. It has been further contended by the learned counsel
that a perusal of Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934,
                                                                    E
Vol. II (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules"), shows that the
emphasis is on his freedom or otherwise from conviction,
meaning thereby, that the acquittal in criminal case will qualify
him for appointment to the post of Constable since he was
selected and found fit for the post after due selection process     F
was conducted by the respondents.

      9. It has been further contended by the learned counsel
that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance in the case
of Delhi Administration v. Sushi/ Kumar, 1 which is                 G
distinguishable from the present case because the respondent
in the above mentioned case had concealed the relevant fact
to be furnished to the respondents. However, in the present

1.   (1996) 11 sec 605.                                             H
    160     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R . •


A case, there is no allegation of concealment of fact from the
  respondents against the appellant.

        10. It has been further contended that there is no material
  on record to justify the conclusion of the Appointing Authority
  that the antecedents of the appellant were not up to the mark.
8 Further, there is also no allegation of grave moral turpitude
  against the appellant for not appointing him as a Constable
  even though he was selected to the post.

       11. On the other hand, it has been contended by Mr.
C Sangram S. Saran, learned counsel on behalf of the
  respondents, that the appellant was not honourably acquitted
  of the offences arising out of the case registered in FIR No. 200
  of 14.04.1998, as the eye witnesses of the occurrence had
  declined to support the prosecution version and they were
o declared hostile by the Sessions Judge, therefore, the
  proceedings against the accused-appellant resulted in an
  acquittal, which cannot be construed as acquittal of the
  appellant on merit.

       12. It has been further contended by the learned counsel
E on behalf of the respondents that the Senior Superintendent of
  Police, Chandigarh had observed in the order dated
  29.07.2003, that since the post of the Constable is extremely
  sensitive in nature, considering the fact that the interaction and
  dealing a Constable with the general public is more than any
F other member of the force, therefore, utmost care and caution
  is required to be exercised by the respondents in making
  appointments to the post of Constables.

       13. Further, Rules 12.12, 12.14 and 12.18 of the Rules,
G have laid down the criteria to be followed by the respondents
  before making appointments to the post of Constable. The
  above Rules unequivocally state that clean antecedents and
  good moral character of a selected candidate is the sine qua
  non. He/she must fall within the zone of consideration.
H
•     "   JOGINDER SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF                      161
            CHANDIGARH [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.)
         14. On the basis of the aforesaid rival legal contentions         A
    urged on behalf of both the parties, the following points would
    arise for our consideration:

          (1) Whether the denial of the benefit of appointment to the
          appellant by the High Court is legal and valid in the light      8
          of the fact that the appellant was acquitted from the criminal
          case pending against him.

          (2) What order?

         15. To answer the point no. 1, we must first consider             C
    whether the acquittal of the appellant from the criminal case was
    an honourable acquittal. It is the contention of the respondent
    that even though ti;le appellant was acquitted in the criminal
    case, the appointment of the appellant by the appointing
    authority to the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police, which         D
    is a disciplined force was not desirable. The High Court has
    held that what would be relevant is the conduct and character
    of the candidate to be appointed in the service of state police
    and not the actual result thereof in the criminal case as claimed
    by the appellant. Further, the relevant consideration to the case      E
    is the antecedents of the candidate for appointing him to the
    post of Constable.

            16. However, adverting to the criminal proceeding initiated
      against the appellant, we would first like to point out that the
      complainant did not support the case of the prosecution as he        F
      failed to identify the assailants and further admitted that the
      contents of the Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement were not
      disclosed to him and his signatures were ob,tained on a blank
      sheet of paper by the Investigation Officer. Further, Sajjan
      Singh, who was an eye-witness of the case, who was also              G
      injured, had failed to identify the assailants. Both the witnesses
      were declared hostile on the request of the prosecution. The
      learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani held that the
    · prosecution case has not been able to prove in any way the
      allegations against the appellant. Thus, the learned Judge held      H
A
    162        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 11 S.C.R.

    that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges
                                                                            •
    leveled against the appellant in the criminal proceedings.
    Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings and judgment
    of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and are of the opinion
    that the acquittal of the accused from the criminal case was an
s   honourable acquittal. Learned counsel has rightly placed
    reliance upon the decision of this Court in Deputy Inspector
    General of Police & Anr. v. S. Samuthiram2, which relevant
    para is extracted as under :-

          "24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal"
c         came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v.
          Bhopal Singh Panchal. In that case, this Court has
          considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with
          honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary
          proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere
D         acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in
          service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable.
          The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of
          blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of
          Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined
E         by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely
          what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted".
          When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of
          prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had
          miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the
F         accused. it can possibly be said that the accused was
          honourably acquitted."

                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

       17. Further, an acquittal of the appellant is an "honourable"
G acquittal in every sense and purpose. Therefore, the appellant
  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 honourably acquitted in the criminal case

H   2.   (2013) 1 sec 598.
•        JOGINDER SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF
           CHANDIGARH [V. GOPALA GOWDA, ~-]
registered against him.
                                                                 163

                                                                        A

     18. Further, undisputedly, there has been no allegation of
concealment of the fact that a criminal case was registered
against him by the appellant. Thus, the appellant has honestly
disclosed in his verification application submitted to the              B
selection authority that there was a criminal case registered
against him and that it ended in an acquittal on account of
compromise between the parties involved in the criminal case,
he cannot be denied an opportunity to qualify for any post
including the post of a Constable. Reliance has been placed             C
on the decision of this Court in Secretary, Deptt. of Home
Secy., A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu3 , which states herein:-

                 "9. A bare perusal of the extracted portions shows
          that the candidate is required to indicate as to whether he
          has ever been convicted by a Court of law or detained         D
          under any State/Central preventive detention laws for any
          offences whether such conviction is sustained or set aside
          by the appellate Court, if appealed against. The candidate
          is not required to indicate as to whether he had been
          arrested in any case or as to whether any case was            E
           pending. Conviction by a Court or detention under any
           State/Central preventive detention laws is different from
          arrest in any case or pendency of a case. By answering
          that the respondent had not been convicted or detained
           under preventive detention laws it cannot be said that he    F
           had suppressed any material fact or had furnished any
          false information or suppressed any information in the
           attestation form to incur disqualification. The State
           Government and the Tribunal appeared to have proceeded
          on the basis that the respondent ought to have indicated      G
          the fact of arrest or pendency of the case, though column
         .12 of the attestation form did not require such information
           being furnished. The learned counsel for the appellants


    3.   (2005) 2 sec 746 .                                             H
A
    164        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 11 S:C.R.


          submitted that such a requirement has to be read into an
                                                                        •
          attestation form. We find no reason to accept such
          contention. There was no specific requirement to mention
          as to whether any case is pending or whether the applicant
          had been arrested. In view of the specific language so far
B         as column 12 is concerned the respondent cannot be
          found guilty of any suppression.

                                      (emphasis laid by this Court)

        Further, reliance has been placed by this Court in Commr.
C   of Police, Delhi & Anr. v. Dhaval Singh•, wherein it is stated
    as under:-

          "6'. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our
          attention to a judgment rendered by a Bench ofthis Court
D         on 4-10-1996 in Delhi Admn. v. Sushi/ Kumar. On the first
          blush, that judgment seems to support the case of the
          appellants but there is a material difference between the
          two cases. Whereas in the instant case, the respondent
          has conveyed to the appellant that an inadvertent mistake
          had been committed in not giving the information against
E
          the relevant column in the Form much before the
          cancellation of his candidature, in Sushi/ Kumar case no
          such correction was made at any stage by the respondent.
          That judgment is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on
          facts."
F
         19. Further, a bare perusal of Rules 12.12, 12.14 and
    12.18 of the Rules, which would indicate that the recruit should
    be of a good character and suitability. The said Rules are
    extracted hereunder:
G
         ·"Rule 12.12: Supervision of recruitments.

          The standard of performance and the reputation of the
          whole police force depend above all upon the quality of its

H   4.   (1999) 1 sec 246 .
•    JOGINDER SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF
       CHANDIGARH [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
    Constables. Standards for recruits are laid down in the
                                                            165

                                                                   A
    rules which follow, but, over and above these, constant
    attention and effort to raise the general standard of
    recruitment are essential. Gazetted officers shall at all
    times devote special attention to discovering and
    encouraging men of a thoroughly good stamp to enroll           B
    themselves. Efforts shall be made to enroll a proportion of
    men belonging to communities or classes, whose
    representation in the force is desirable, but who appear
    reluctant to offer themselves. The examination and
    measuring of candidates for enrolment shall invariably be      c
    carried out by a gazetted officer, who shall concern himself
    specially to prevent the victimization of, or the taking of
    illegal gratification from, candidates by subordinate
    Government servants concerned in the conduct of their
    examination. Superintendents shall personally satisfy          D
    themselves that the arrangements for the reception of new
    recruits in the Lines, and for providing them with bedding
    and warm clothing, whether as a sanctioned Government
    issue or under a system whereby the cost is recovered later
    in instalments from pay, are adequate. and that recruitment
    is not discouraged by initial and avoidable hardships.         E
    Deputy lnspeciors General, in addition to exercising a
    careful control over recruitment generally, and preventing
    the enrolment of undesirable types, shall, at their
    inspections, formal and informal, pay special attention to
    the observance of this rule.                                   F

    Rule 12.14 Recruits-Status of.-

    (1 )Recruits shall be of good character and great care shall
    be taken in selection men of a type suitable for police        G
    service from candidates presenting themselves for
    enrolment.

    ·.~xx

    12.18 Recruits verification of character of.                   H
A
    166       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014] 11 S.C.R.


          (1) The character and suitability for enrolment of every
                                                                            •
          recruit shall be ascertained by a reference to the lambardar
          of the village or ward member of the town of which the
          recruit is a resident. A search slip shall also be sent to the
          Finger Print Bureau in order to establish his freedom or
B         otherwise from conviction. Such lambardar or ward
          member shall, if the recruit is of good character, furnish a
          certificate to that effect which shall be verified and attested
          by the sub-inspector in charge of the local police station.
          The Sub-Inspector shall be complete the information
c         required by form 12.18(1)"

        20. It is the submission made on behalf of the respondents
  that the above referred rules lay down the criteria that clean
  antecedents and good moral character is indispensable for a
  candidate to even fall within the zone of consideration.
D However, in the present case, we have observed that the
  appellant was involved in a family feud and the FIR came to
  be lodged against him on 14.04.1998, after he had applied for
  the post of Constable. Further, he had been acquitted on
  04.10.1999, i.e. much before he was called for the interview/
E medical examination/ written test. Further, as per Rule 12.18,
  emphasis has been laid on the freedom and otherwise from
  conviction. An interpretation of the Rules referred to supra
  clearly indicate that an acquittal in a criminal case will qualify
  him for appointment to the post of Police Constable, as the
F appellant had successfully qualified the other requisites required
  for his selection. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the Trial Court
  that as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against
  the appellant by adducing cogent evidence, therefore, the
  Police authorities cannot be allowed to sit in judgment over the
G findings recorded by the Sessions Court in its judgment,
  wherein the appellant has been honourably acquitted. Denying
  him the appointment to the post of a Constable is like a
  vicarious punishment, which is not permissible in law, therefore,
  the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
H is vitiated in law and liable to be set aside.
•         JOGINDER SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF
            CHANDIGARH [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
     21. Further, apart from a small dent in the name of this
                                                                     167


                                                                             A
criminal case in which he has been honourably acquitted, there
is no other material on record to indicate that the antecedents
or the conduct of the appellant was not up to the mark to
appoint him to the post. The appellant was also among the list
of the 40 selected successful candidates, who had fulfilled all              B
the other requirements of the post. Reliance has been placed
on the decision of this Court in the case of Jagtar Singh v.
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, 5 which states as
under:-

          "4 .......... It is not necessary for us to go into the question
                                                                             c
          as to whether the claim of privilege by the respondents is
         justified or not. We also do not wish to go into the details
          of the investigations made regarding the antecedents and
          character of the appellant. We have carefully examined the
          material on the basis of which the respondents have come           D
          to the conclusion that the appellant is not suitable for
         .appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor in the
          tentral Bureau of Investigation and we are of the view that
          the respondents are not justified in reaching a conclusion
          adverse to the appellant. No reasonable person, on the             E
          basis of the material placed before us, can come to the
          conclusion that the appellant's antecedents and character
          are such that he is unfit to be appointed to the post of Senior
          Public Prosecutor. There has been total lack of application
          of mind on the part of the respondents. Only on the basis          F
          of surmises and conjectures arising out of a single incident
          which happened in the year 1983 it has been concluded
          that the appellant is not a desirable person to be appointed
          to the Government service. We are of the view that the
          appellant has been unjustifiably denied his right to be            G
          appointed to the post to which he was selected and
          recommended by the Union Public Service Commission."

          22. Thus, we are of the opinion that the alleged past
    s.   1993 Supp (3) sec 49.                                               H
A
    168       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R.


  conduct of the appellant in relation to the criminal case will not
                                                                         •
  debar or disqualify him for the post of the Constable for which
  he was succ~ssfully selected after qualifying the written test,
  medical test and the interview conducted by the selection
  authority. Further, as stated by us earlier, there has been no
B concealment of any relevant fact from the respondents by the
  appellant. The respondents were thus not justified in denying
  the said post to the appellant. The conclusion arrived at by them
  is not cogent and lacks proper application of mind.

          23. We therefore, hold that the High Court has committed
c a grave error both on facts and in law and it has failed to follow
    the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred
    to supra and uphold the decision of the CAT. For the fofegoing
                                                                         •·.
    reasons both the appeals succeed and are allowed.

D        24. Since we have upheld the judgment and order of the
    CAT, the respondents are directed to comply with the same by
    issuing appointment letter to the appellant within four weeks
    from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall
    be no order as to costs.
E
    Kalpana K. Tripathy                               Appeals allowed.
                                                                         ·-