In CWP-1827-2019-PUNJ HC- Mere registration of criminal case against candidate can never be ground for denying rights of such candidate to participate in selection process and secure public appointment: P&H HC
Justice Rajbir Sehrawat [31-10-2022]

Read Order: Mandeep Kaur v. Canara Bank and Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, November 3, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently held that the mere registration of a criminal case against the candidate can never be a ground for denying the rights of such a candidate to participate in the process and to secure a public appointment in his/her favor. 

“FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence, therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment… and This presumption of innocence cannot be eclipsed in any other collateral process or for any other purpose”, the Bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat held, while also emphasizing,“In this way, an irrelevant fact is made a ground to deny to the citizen right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This approach is sworn enemy of the rule of law, and thus has to be disapproved.”

Also, Justice Sehrawat opined that the employer cannot introduce a condition in terms of the appointment which is not supported by any statutory provision and it also goes against the right to equality of the candidate to participate in the process of selection and to secure a public appointment as per his/her merit. 

This petition was filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders whereby the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner for the post of Probationary Officer was canceled. 

The petitioner applied for the post of Probationary Officer in the respondent-Bank and was ultimately selected as per her merit. Thereafter, an appointment letter was issued and she was deputed to the induction training at Gurugram. When she joined the training, she informed the respondent-Bank that during the period of the selection process, an FIR was registered against her and her family members. 

The respondent-Bank required the petitioner to get clearance in the said criminal case. Later, she was asked to report for training at Lucknow. However, the petitioner could not join because earlier the respondent-Bank had told her to get clearance in the criminal case, but the criminal case was still pending at that time. 

Vide the impugned order, the respondents denied the appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the criminal case against the petitioner did not attain finality. Relaying was placed upon Clause 9 of the appointment letter which stipulated that the appointment was subject to satisfactory report regarding the petitioner’s character and antecedents from the Police Authorities and non-pendency of any criminal case/prosecution against her. The said clause also provided that her conviction, though released on probation and the compounding of offence shall also be treated as report adverse to her. 

The High Court had already quashed the FIR against the petitioner. Therefore, in essence, the petitioner was denied joining on the post on the ground of pendency of the criminal case without recognizing the fact that the case against the petitioner was already quashed.

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that a false case was registered against her and her family during the process of her selection and she was not involved in any such case when she joined. The Counsel further added that the case was already quashed and thus, there was no basis left for the respondents to deny her appointment. 

On the contrary, the Counsel for the Bank argued that the petitioner was involved in a case and that her appointment letter specifically contained a stipulation that any pendency of the criminal case or conviction or compounding of the offence would be taken as adverse to her and she will not be entitled to be appointed to the post of Probationary Officer. 

Having heard the counsel, the Court found substance in the petitioner’s case. Undisputedly, the Court observed that there was no FIR or criminal case registered or pending against the petitioner when she applied for the post of Probationary Officer and when she participated in the process and it was only during the process of the selection that an FIR came into being, which fact was clearly informed by her to the Bank on the first available opportunity. 

Therefore, it was not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner had concealed the registration of pendency of a criminal case against her, the Bench stated while adding that the case was already quashed, hence, there was absolutely no criminal case pending against the petitioner as on the date when the appointment was declined to the petitioner. 

So far as the mere registration or pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner was concerned, the Court opined that FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence, therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment. 

“A person is to be presumed to be innocent till proven otherwise upon a trial conducted as per the law. This presumption of innocence cannot be eclipsed in any other collateral process or for any other purpose. Reading anything adverse to a person only for registration of an FIR is nothing but a systemic bias based upon a negativism arising from the frustration due to the facts that the criminal cases remain pending for years together and the courts are not in a position to take the trial to a logical end within reasonable time. Hence, a convenient method has been devised to deny benefits to citizens by putting the factum of registration of FIR against him in the forefront”, the Bench asserted categorically. 

Further, the Court also opined that in this way, an irrelevant fact is made a ground to deny to the citizen right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India and that this approach is sworn enemy of the rule of law, and thus has to be disapproved. 

“Therefore, mere registration of a criminal case against the candidate can never be a ground for denying the rights of such a candidate to participate in the process and to secure a public appointment in his/her favour”, the Court re-emphasized. 

Additionally, the Court held that since the case was quashed, therefore, the very basis on which the action of the respondents was based was extinguished by the due process of law thus, the eclipse cast upon the rights of the petitioner, even if so perceived by the respondents, though without any basis, was already removed. 

Further, on the condition/ clause incorporated in the appointment letter, the Court held, 

“The respondents cannot introduce a condition in terms of the appointment which is not supported by any statutory provision; and it also goes against the right to equality of the candidate to participate in the process of selection and to secure a public appointment as per his/her merit. Such a condition is an artificial device created by the respondents; which militates against the fundamental rights of the petitioner and against more than one jurisprudential principle. Therefore, the same deserves to be deprecated with the contempt it deserves.”

Thus, the present writ petition was allowed.