1996 JTR(SC) 1619
1997 75 FLR 42 ; 1996 10 JT 34 ; 1996 4 RSJ 648 ; 1997 2 RSJ 745 ; 1996 8 Scale 11 ; 1996 11 SCC 605 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 492 ; 1996 Supp7 SCR 199 ; 1997 1 SCT 474 ; 1997 1 SLR 123 ; 1997 1 UJ 159 ; 1996 KHC 3693 ; 1996 2 KLT(Online) 1101 ; 1996 8 Supreme 47
1996(8) Supreme 47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Sushil Kumar -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 13231 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5340 of 1996)
Decided on 4-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.A. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, D.V. Padurpuja and B.K. Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sanjay Kapur, Mrs. Shubhra Kapur, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate was suitable to the post under the State and the fact that he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same had nothing to do with the question.
Act
Referred
:INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.304, S.324, S.34
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal erroneously interpreted the interplay between the Indian Penal Code sections 304, 324, and 34 in the context of a public service appointment. Section 304 addresses culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while Section 324 penalizes voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Section 34 enshrins the principle of common intention, where acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention are attributed to each. The Tribunal held that a discharge or acquittal under these provisions negates the appointing authority's consideration of antecedents, a view the court rejected as legally unsustainable. The correct application is that these provisions are irrelevant to the fitness assessment; the inquiry must focus exclusively on the candidate's character and antecedents, irrespective of the ultimate legal outcome of the criminal case.
(B) The core legal principles are that the verification of character and antecedents is a distinct and critical criterion for appointment to a disciplined force, separate from criminal trial outcomes. An appointing authority has the discretion to reject a candidate based on an undesirable antecedent record, and this decision is not bound by the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. The grant of a discharge or acquittal in a criminal court does not automatically confer eligibility for public employment, as the relevant inquiry pertains to conduct and character, not the legal result of the prosecution.
Facts of the case:
The respondent applied for recruitment as a Constable in the Delhi Police Services, was found physically fit through written test and interview, and was provisionally selected. Verification of his character and antecedents revealed a record that made his appointment undesirable. He was consequently rejected. He filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed his appeal, directing reconsideration based on his discharge/acquittal under Sections 304, 324 read with 34, and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent's selection was properly subject to verification of antecedents. The appointing authority's decision, based on the undesirable nature of the respondent's record, was not unwarranted. The tribunal's direction for reconsideration was wholly unjustified, as the criminal outcome was irrelevant to the employment eligibility.
Issues:
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct in holding that a discharge or acquittal under Sections 304, 324 read with 34, and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code mandates reconsideration of a candidate rejected on grounds of undesirable antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi:
The grant of a discharge or acquittal in criminal proceedings is immaterial to the assessment of a candidate's fitness for public service. The appointing authority is entitled to base its decision on the character and antecedents of the candidate, and such a decision is not overturned by the tribunal's erroneous legal interpretation of the relevant IPC sections.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside, and no costs are awarded.
(A) The impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal erroneously interpreted the interplay between the Indian Penal Code sections 304, 324, and 34 in the context of a public service appointment. Section 304 addresses culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while Section 324 penalizes voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Section 34 enshrins the principle of common intention, where acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention are attributed to each. The Tribunal held that a discharge or acquittal under these provisions negates the appointing authority's consideration of antecedents, a view the court rejected as legally unsustainable. The correct application is that these provisions are irrelevant to the fitness assessment; the inquiry must focus exclusively on the candidate's character and antecedents, irrespective of the ultimate legal outcome of the criminal case.
(B) The core legal principles are that the verification of character and antecedents is a distinct and critical criterion for appointment to a disciplined force, separate from criminal trial outcomes. An appointing authority has the discretion to reject a candidate based on an undesirable antecedent record, and this decision is not bound by the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. The grant of a discharge or acquittal in a criminal court does not automatically confer eligibility for public employment, as the relevant inquiry pertains to conduct and character, not the legal result of the prosecution.
Facts of the case:
The respondent applied for recruitment as a Constable in the Delhi Police Services, was found physically fit through written test and interview, and was provisionally selected. Verification of his character and antecedents revealed a record that made his appointment undesirable. He was consequently rejected. He filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed his appeal, directing reconsideration based on his discharge/acquittal under Sections 304, 324 read with 34, and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent's selection was properly subject to verification of antecedents. The appointing authority's decision, based on the undesirable nature of the respondent's record, was not unwarranted. The tribunal's direction for reconsideration was wholly unjustified, as the criminal outcome was irrelevant to the employment eligibility.
Issues:
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct in holding that a discharge or acquittal under Sections 304, 324 read with 34, and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code mandates reconsideration of a candidate rejected on grounds of undesirable antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi:
The grant of a discharge or acquittal in criminal proceedings is immaterial to the assessment of a candidate's fitness for public service. The appointing authority is entitled to base its decision on the character and antecedents of the candidate, and such a decision is not overturned by the tribunal's erroneous legal interpretation of the relevant IPC sections.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside, and no costs are awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on September 6, 1995 in OA No. 1756/91. The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90 with Roll No. 65790. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally; his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Aggrieved by proceedings dated December 18, 1990 culminating in cancellation of his provisional selection, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is: whether the view taken by the tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was physically found fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing Authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found him not desirable to appoint him to the service.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal stands set aside. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******