Employer Cannot Be Compelled To Appoint A Candidate Merely Because He Made Truthful Declaration Regarding Criminal Cases

Case: Union of India vs. Mithu Meda

Coram: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari

Case no.: CA 6238 OF 2021

Court Observation: It is clear that the employer is having the right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment. Acquittal on the technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents and may take an appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even in case, a truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made by the employee, still, the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

“In view of the aforesaid, it is clear the respondent who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category. The employer is having the right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is completely exonerated because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee and the decision of the Committee would be final unless mala fide”

“As discussed hereinabove, the law is well­settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate.”

[doc id=11110]

Previous Posts

Section 138 NI Act – Summons To Directors Justified If Complaint Avers That They Were In Charge & Responsible For Conduct Of Business Of Company: Supreme Court

Specific Performance – ‘Readiness’ & ‘Willingness’ Can’t Be Proved For First Time Before HC Through Affidavit Without Amending Pleadings: Supreme Court

Part-Time Employees Can’t Seek Regularization As Matter Of Right Contrary To Govt’s Regularization Policy: Supreme Court

Section 28 Contract Act – Clause Barring Payment Of Interest Not Hit: Supreme Court