Chandigarh Police Recruitment: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Candidates with Criminal Background

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment on January 8, 2018, ruled on a significant case regarding the suitability of candidates with past criminal cases for recruitment in Chandigarh Police. The case, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Anr., revolved around the cancellation of selected candidates due to their involvement in criminal cases, despite their acquittal. The Court upheld the decision of the Screening Committee, stating that police forces require candidates of impeccable integrity and character.

Background of the Case

The Chandigarh Police issued an advertisement on March 14, 2010, inviting applications for 1200 temporary posts of Constable (Executive). The recruitment process involved various tests, including a Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Measurement Test, written examination, and an interview.

During the background verification, it was found that several candidates had been involved in criminal cases. Although they had been acquitted, the Screening Committee, chaired by the Senior Superintendent of Police, deemed them unsuitable for appointment. The respondents challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled in their favor, directing the authorities to reconsider their appointment. The Chandigarh Administration then appealed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which upheld the CAT’s decision. Dissatisfied, the administration approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellants (Chandigarh Administration)

The Chandigarh Administration contended that:

Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in a disciplined force like the police.
The Screening Committee was within its rights to assess the character and antecedents of candidates and to reject them based on suitability.
The acquittals in question were not honorable but were based on the benefit of the doubt or lack of evidence.
The High Court had erred by substituting its views in place of the Screening Committee’s expert decision.

Arguments by the Respondents (Disqualified Candidates)

The respondents countered that:

They had been acquitted and, therefore, had no criminal liability.
They had truthfully disclosed their past cases in their attestation forms, showing transparency.
The rejection was arbitrary and violated their right to employment.
Other similarly placed candidates had been recruited despite having similar backgrounds.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court carefully examined the legal and policy aspects surrounding the recruitment process and made the following key observations:

“Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically confer the right to employment, especially in the police force.”
“If the acquittal is based on benefit of the doubt or procedural lapses, it does not erase the past conduct of the individual.”
“The Screening Committee’s decision must be given due weight as it is best suited to evaluate the character and integrity of candidates.”
“Maintaining discipline and public confidence in the police force requires strict scrutiny of candidates’ backgrounds.”
“Courts should not substitute their views in place of expert committees unless there is clear evidence of bias or mala fide intentions.”

Referring to past judgments, the Court reiterated:

“In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh (2013), this Court held that candidates seeking appointment in police forces must have impeccable character and any past criminal involvement, even if leading to acquittal, must be carefully scrutinized.”
“In Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016), this Court clarified that an employer has the discretion to assess the suitability of candidates with past criminal records, even if they have been acquitted.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Chandigarh Administration and ruled that:

The Screening Committee’s decision to reject the candidates was valid and based on reasonable grounds.
The High Court erred in interfering with the administrative discretion of the police recruitment process.
The principle of maintaining integrity in law enforcement agencies takes precedence over individual employment claims.
The rejection of the respondents’ candidature was upheld.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining discipline and trust in police forces by ensuring that only candidates with impeccable integrity are recruited. The decision upholds the discretion of screening committees in assessing candidates’ suitability while setting a precedent that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to government employment.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union Territory, Cha vs Pradeep Kumar & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-01-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category