ACQUITTAL IN MARTIMONIAL CRIMINAL CASES - NO STIGMA FOR APPOINTMENTS
quashing the orders dated 14.09.2018, 18.07.2018 and 21.09.2019 by which appellant has been 2 held not suitable for being appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 09.03.2017 inviting applications for recruitment in the post of District Judge(Entry Level) in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service by Direct Recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates. In pursuance to the advertisement, the appellant submitted online application form. The appellant after being declared successful in the Main Examination was called for interview. The provisional select and waiting list was published in which the name of the appellant was included at Serial No.13 in the category of unreserved. The appellant received a communication on 06.04.2018 from the Law and Legislative Department informing that he has been selected for the post of District Judge (Entry Level). He was asked to appear before the Medical Board for the health tests. On 02.07.2018 the appellant was informed that in his 3 attestation form FIR No.852/2014 under Section 498/406/34 IPC is shown and the copy of the same was asked for. On 14.09.2018 order was issued by the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Department declaring the appellant ineligible and directing for deletion the name of the appellant from the select list. The Government also issued a Gazette notification deleting the name of the appellant from the Merit No.13 of the main select list.
We, thus, are of the view that the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition. The appellant was not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. In the result, while dismissing this appeal we observe that stigma, if any, of the criminal case lodged against appellant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC is washed out due to the acquittal of the appellant vide judgment dated 18.09.2019.
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).3419 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.10255 of 2020)
ANIL BHARDWAJ APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed questioning the Division
Bench judgment dated 06.01.2020 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ petition filed by
the appellant. The appellant in the writ petition has
prayed for quashing the orders dated 14.09.2018,
18.07.2018 and 21.09.2019 by which appellant has been
2
held not suitable for being appointed to the post of
District Judge (Entry Level).
3. The brief facts of the case are:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an
advertisement dated 09.03.2017 inviting applications
for recruitment in the post of District Judge(Entry
Level) in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service by
Direct Recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates.
In pursuance to the advertisement, the appellant
submitted online application form. The appellant after
being declared successful in the Main Examination was
called for interview. The provisional select and
waiting list was published in which the name of the
appellant was included at Serial No.13 in the category
of unreserved. The appellant received a communication
on 06.04.2018 from the Law and Legislative Department
informing that he has been selected for the post of
District Judge (Entry Level). He was asked to appear
before the Medical Board for the health tests. On
02.07.2018 the appellant was informed that in his
3
attestation form FIR No.852/2014 under Section
498/406/34 IPC is shown and the copy of the same was
asked for. On 14.09.2018 order was issued by the
Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh, Law and
Legislative Department declaring the appellant
ineligible and directing for deletion the name of the
appellant from the select list. The Government also
issued a Gazette notification deleting the name of the
appellant from the Merit No.13 of the main select list.
4. The appellant filed a Writ Petition No.27434 of
2018 before the High Court challenging the order dated
14.09.2018 and the Gazette notification dated
21.09.2018. On application submitted under the Right to
Information Act, the appellant was provided extract of
the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of Administrative
Committee (Higher Judicial Service) and Examinationcum-Selection and Appointment Committee dated
18.07.2018 by which proceedings the appellant was not
considered suitable for being appointed to the post of
District Judge (Entry Level). On the basis of a
4
complaint by the wife of the appellant, a criminal case
was registered and vide judgment dated 18.09.2019 the
appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against
him.
5. The appellant filed an application for amendment of
the writ petition to bring on record the order of the
acquittal and other events occurred during the pendency
of the writ petition. The appellant was permitted to
withdraw his earlier writ petition with liberty to file
a fresh writ petition. Writ Petition No.27779 of 2019
was filed by the appellant incorporating subsequent
events, facts and acquittal order which writ petition
has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated
06.01.2020 by the High Court. Aggrieved by the impugned
judgment, the appellant has come up in this appeal.
6. We have heard Shri R. Venkataramani, learned senior
counsel for the appellant.
7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits
that the appellant in his online application form has
disclosed about the lodging of FIR No.852/2014 under
5
Section 498A/406/34 IPC. He submits that appellant
having disclosed the lodging of FIR against him has not
concealed any fact before the High Court and he having
been selected on merit was entitled to be appointed.
Shri Venkataramani submits that on the subsequent
acquittal of the appellant on 18.09.2019 his case for
appointment was to be reconsidered by the High Court
and the High Court committed an error in not
considering the appellant for appointment. The
candidature of the appellant could not have been
cancelled merely on the ground of pendency of criminal
case. The appellant could not have been deprived of the
employment after acquittal. There was no other material
on record to indicate that antecedent or conduct of the
appellant was not upto the mark. The High Court ought
to have sent the matter back before the Higher Judicial
Service and Examination-cum-Selection Committee for
reconsideration.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to
the judgments of this Court which have been relied by
6
the High Court in the impugned judgment. Learned
counsel for appellant has also placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Mohammed Imran vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (C.A.No.10571 of 2018) decided
on 12.10.2018. He submits that the judgment of Mohammed
Imran was also a case of a judicial officer who was
directed by this Court to be given appointment.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records.
10. The present is not a case where the name of the
appellant was deleted in the select list on the ground
of any concealment of criminal case against him. The
appellant has brought on the record the proceedings of
Examination-cum-Selection Committee dated 18.07.2018.
At Item No.2 of the Agenda the Committee recorded the
following decision:
“ITEM NO.02.Consideration on the matter relates
to Character Verification Reports of
selected 13 candidates of MPHJS
(District Judge-Entry Level) (Direct
from Bar) Exam-2016 & 2017, received
from Law Department, Bhopal for
7
determination of their eligibility
for the said post.
1.Shri Anil Bhardwaj:-
Attestation Form submitted Shri Anil
Bhardwaj and police verification report
submitted by Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Special Branch, New Delhi, goes to show that
FIR 852/2014 under Section 498A/406/34 of IPC
has been registered against Shri Anil
Bhardwaj on the basis of complaint filed by
Smt. Pooja wife of Shri Anil Bhardwaj.
After due consideration resolved that a
case against Shri Anil Bhardwaj under Section
498A, 406-34 IPC is still pending before
Rohini Court, New Delhi. Therefore, he is not
considered suitable for being appointed to
the post of District Judge (Entry Level).”
10. The FIR against the appellant was lodged by his
wife under Section 498A and 406 IPC in the year 2014 on
the basis of which a charge-sheet was submitted in the
Court on 15.07.2017 under Section 498A and 406 IPC. The
appellant has disclosed lodging of the FIR against him
in his online application form. The name of the
appellant was included in the select list which was
forwarded to the State. The State after character
verification submitted a report which report was
8
considered on 18.07.2018 by the Administrative
Committee (Higher Judicial Service) and Examinationcum-Selection and Appointment Committee and a
resolution was taken that due to pendency of the case
under Section 498A, 406-34 IPC on the basis of
complaint filed by the wife, Smt. Pooja, the appellant
is not considered suitable for being appointed to the
post of District Judge.
11. Before the High Court, the decision of the
Committee dated 18.07.2018 as well as the order of the
State dated 14.09.2018 for deleting the name of the
appellant was challenged in the writ petition. The main
issue to be considered was as to whether resolution
dated 18.07.2018 suffered from error which requires
judicial review by the High Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226. The submission which
has been pressed by the counsel for the appellant is
that appellant’s case was required to be reconsidered
in view of his subsequent acquittal on 18.09.2019.
9
12. The recruitment to the Judicial Service is governed
by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Uchchatar Nyayik
Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994. This
Court issued direction to all States to fill up the
vacancies in subordinate Courts in a time schedule. The
direction was issued by this Court in Malik Mazhar
Sultan (3) and another vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission and others, 2008(17) SCC 703. The selection
process for filling up the post of District Judge has
to be completed by all the High Courts as per the time
schedule fixed by this Court. After declaration of the
merit list the candidates have to be given appointments
in time bound manner so that they may join the
respective posts. There is no dispute that on the date
when the Committee declared the appellant unsuitable,
criminal case against him under Section 498A and 406
IPC was pending which was registered on a complaint
filed by the appellant’s wife, Smt. Pooja. The mere
inclusion in the select list does not give an
indefeasible right to a candidate. The employer has
10
right to refuse appointment to the candidate included
in the select list on any valid ground. The persons who
occupy Judicial Service of the State are persons who
are expected to have impeccable character and conduct.
It is not disputed that the criminal case under Section
498A and 406 IPC was pending at the time when the
appellant applied for the recruitment, when he appeared
for the interview and when the result was declared. The
character verification report was received from the
State where pendency of the criminal case was mentioned
which was the reason for the Committee to declare the
appellant unsuitable. The submission which needs to be
considered is that whether in view of the subsequent
acquittal of the appellant, his case was required to be
reconsidered and he was entitled to be appointed.
13. This Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and
another vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685, while
considering a case of antecedents verification for
11
appointment into Delhi Police Service made the
following observation in paragraph 35:
“35. 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 his taking to the
life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline
of the police force.…………”
14. The observation was made by this Court in the above
case that a candidate wishing to join the police force
must be a person having impeccable character and
integrity. The above observations apply with greater
force to the Judicial Service. This Court further
observed that even in the case of acquittal, it has to
be examined as to whether the person was completely
exonerated in the case or not. In the present case the
acquittal having taken place after the close of
12
recruitment process, there was no question of examining
the acquittal order by the High Court at the time of
finalizing the selection process.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to
the judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh vs. Union
Territory of Chandigarh and others, (2015) 2 SCC 377,
which was a case whether the appellant was acquitted by
the trial court for a case under Section
148/149/323/325/307 IPC. In the above case acquittal
took place even before the appellant was called for the
interview/medical examination. This fact was recorded
in paragraph 24 of the judgment in the following words:
“24. 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 14-4-1998, after he had applied
for the post of Constable. Further, he had been
acquitted on 4-10-1999 i.e. much before he was
called for the interview/medical
examination/written test………”
16. The above case is clearly distinguishable and does
not help the appellant.
13
17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh
vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, had
occasion to examine different aspects of verification
form after selection including the question of having
criminal antecedents and pending of criminal case. This
Court laid down that in the event criminal case is
pending and incumbent has not been acquitted employer
may well be justified in not appointing such an
incumbent. In paragraph 32 following has been laid
down:
“32. No doubt about it that once
verification form requires certain information
to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to
furnish it correctly and any suppression of
material facts or submitting false information,
may by itself lead to termination of his
services or cancellation of candidature in an
appropriate case. However, in a criminal case
incumbent has not been acquitted and case is
pending trial, employer may well be justified
in not appointing such an incumbent or in
terminating the services as conviction
ultimately may render him unsuitable for job
and employer is not supposed to wait till
outcome of criminal case. In such a case nondisclosure or submitting false information
would assume significance and that by itself
14
may be ground for employer to cancel
candidature or to terminate services.”
18. Even in a case where candidates have been acquitted
in criminal case, it was held that the decision of the
Screening Committee being not actuated by mala fide
regarding suitability of the candidate is to be
respected. This Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh
Administration and others vs. Pradeep Kumar and
another, (2018) 1 SCC 797, laid down following in
paragraphs 13 and 17:
“13. It is thus well settled that acquittal
in a criminal case does not automatically
entitle him for appointment to the post. Still
it is open to the employer to consider the
antecedents and examine whether he is suitable
for appointment to the post. From the
observations of this Court in Mehar Singh, 2013
(7) SCC 685 and Parvez Khan, 2015 (2) SCC 591
cases, it is clear that a candidate to be
recruited to the police service must be of
impeccable character and integrity. A person
having criminal antecedents will not fit in
this category. Even if he is acquitted or
discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was
honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The
decision of the Screening Committee must be
taken as final unless it is shown to be mala
fide. The Screening Committee also must be
alive to the importance of the trust reposed in
15
it and must examine the candidate with utmost
character.
17. In a catena of judgments, the importance
of integrity and high standard of conduct in
police force has been emphasised. As held in
Mehar Singh case5, the decision of the
Screening Committee must be taken as final
unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand,
there is nothing to suggest that the decision
of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The
decision of the Screening Committee that the
respondents are not suitable for being
appointed to the post of Constable does not
call for interference. The Tribunal and the
High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside
the decision of the Screening Committee and the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.”
19. Now, we may notice the judgment of Mohammed Imran
(supra) which has been heavily relied by the learned
counsel for the appellant. In the above case the
appellant was selected for Judicial Service whose
selection was cancelled on 04.06.2010 due to the
character verification report of the Police. Writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court. It was
contended before this court that the appellant was
acquitted of the charge under Sections 363, 366, 34 IPC
on 28.10.2004 that is much before he cleared the
16
examination for appointment in the year 2009. The
appellant disclosed his prosecution and acquittal by
the Sessions Court. This Court noticed the aforesaid
fact in paragraph 9 of the judgment in the following
words:
“9. It is an undisputed fact that one Shri
Sudhir Gulabrao Barde, who had been acquitted
on 24.11.2009 in Case No.3022 of 2007 under
Sections 294, 504, 34 IPC, has been
appointed……”
20. This Court held that report received reveals that
except for the criminal case, in which he had already
been acquitted, the appellant has a clean record and
there is no adverse material against him to deny him
the fruits of his academic labour. This Court found
decision rejecting the candidature of the appellant as
untenable by making following observation in paragraph
11:
“11. In the entirety of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that the consideration of
the candidature of the appellant and its
rejection are afflicted by a myopic vision,
blurred by the spectacle of what has been
described as moral turpitude, reflecting
17
inadequate appreciation and application of
facts also, as justice may demand.”
21. There can be no dispute that in event it is found
that decision by which the candidature of a candidate
is rejected is arbitrary or actuated by malafide such
decision can be interfered by the Constitutional
Courts. We have already noticed the judgment of this
Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and
others vs. Pradeep Kumar and another (supra) that the
decision of the Screening Committee must be final
unless it is mala fide.
22. There can be no dispute to the above preposition.
But there can be other valid reasons for not sustaining
the decision of Screening Committee/ Selection
Committee apart from the ground of mala fide. Any
arbitrary decision taken by the Selection Committee can
very well be interfered by the Constitutional Courts in
exercise of Judicial Review Jurisdiction.
18
23. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the
decision of Examination-cum-Section and Appointment
Committee for holding the appellant unsuitable was
based on the relevant consideration, i.e., a criminal
case against the appellant under Section 498A/406/34
IPC was pending consideration which was registered on a
complaint filed by the wife of the appellant. Such
decision of the Committee was well within the
jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be
said to be unsustainable. The mere fact that
subsequently after more than a year when the person
whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted
cannot be a ground to turn the clock backward.
24. There being no infirmity in the decision dated
18.07.2018 of the Committee declaring the appellant
unsuitable for the post and consequential decision
taken by the State to delete the name of the appellant,
the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing
the writ petition. The fact that subsequently the
appellant was acquitted in the criminal case did not
19
furnish sufficient ground for reconsidering the
appellant for appointment on the post.
25. One more submission advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner needs also to be considered. The
petitioner’s contention is that the decision declaring
the petitioner unsuitable on the ground of pendency of
criminal case under Section 498A, 406 IPC was contrary
to the guidelines issued by the Government of Madhya
Pradesh for character verification dated 05.06.2003. He
submits that as per paragraph 6(viii) of the guidelines
on the acquittal on merit of the case by the Court, the
candidate will be eligible for Government service. He
submits that the above clause of the Government Order
has been breached in declaring the appellant
unsuitable.
26. The guidelines dated 05.06.2003 has been issued by
Government of Madhya Pradesh on the subject “regarding
issuing of new guidelines for character verification.”
Paragraph 6 which has been relied by the counsel for
20
the appellant is regarding column 12 of the Attestation
form. It is useful to extract paragraph 6 and clause
(viii) which are as follows: -
“6. The Column 12 of the attestation form
filled for character verification by selected
candidates for government service, criminal
background, judicial case and the information
about acquittal or conviction in it, willfully
or erroneously or ignorantly kept vacant
subject to qualification for appointment in
government service taking into consideration
the policy as per rules by the state government
with immediate effect decisions have been
taken.
(i)……… ………… ……………
………… ………… ……………
(viii) On the acquittal on merit of the
case by the Hon’ble Court, the candidate
will be eligible for government service.”
27. Clause (viii) on which the reliance is placed
contemplates that the candidate who has been acquitted
on merit by the Court will be eligible for the
Government service. The aforesaid contemplation relates
to at the time of character verification. Thus, at the
time of character verification, if a candidate is found
to be acquitted on merits by the Court, the candidate
shall be treated to be eligible for Government Service.
21
The above clause (viii) as quoted above cannot come to
the rescue of the appellant who at the time of
character verification or at the time of consideration
of the case of the appellant by the committee on
18.07.2018 had not been acquitted. Had the appellant in
column 12 had mentioned about the acquittal or at the
time of character verification it was found that the
candidate has been acquitted on merit by the Court,
Clause 6(viii) would have been attracted but in the
present case the said clause is not attracted since at
the time of character verification the appellant had
not been acquitted and he was acquitted after more than
a year from rejection of his candidature.
28. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly has
contended that due to deletion of the name of appellant
from select list a stigma is attached to him, for
removal of which this Court may issue notice in this
SLP. As noted above, the appellant having already been
acquitted by the judgment dated 18.09.2019 stigma of
criminal case has already washed out and the criminal
22
case having resulted in acquittal no stigma is attached
to the appellant’s name on the above ground. The
apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant
that a stigma shall continue with the name of the
appellant is misconceived, stigma, if any, is already
over by acquittal.
29. We, thus, are of the view that the High Court did
not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition.
The appellant was not entitled for any relief in the
writ petition. In the result, while dismissing this
appeal we observe that stigma, if any, of the criminal
case lodged against appellant under Section 498A/406/34
IPC is washed out due to the acquittal of the appellant
vide judgment dated 18.09.2019.
......................J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
......................J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 13, 2020.
