Employment Disqualification Due to Criminal Record: Supreme Court Ruling

The case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar revolves around the rejection of a candidate’s appointment in the police force due to his past criminal record. The Supreme Court of India ruled on the matter, emphasizing the importance of moral character in law enforcement.

The petitioner, Abhijit Singh Pawar, applied for a police position in Madhya Pradesh. While he disclosed his past criminal case, he was subsequently acquitted due to a compromise. However, his candidature was rejected after the character verification process.

Background of the Case

The petitioner had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in Madhya Pradesh Police. At the time of his application, a criminal case was pending against him. He duly mentioned this in the verification form. However, by the time the selection process had concluded, he was acquitted of all charges due to a compromise between the parties involved.

Despite the acquittal, the authorities rejected his candidature, citing that his past criminal history made him unsuitable for law enforcement duties. The rejection was based on the verification report, which flagged his previous involvement in criminal proceedings.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that his acquittal meant he had no criminal record. He further argued:

• Since the charges were compromised and led to his acquittal, he should not be treated as a convicted person.
• He had disclosed his past case truthfully and did not suppress any material information.
• His acquittal should be seen as a clean record, allowing him to serve in the police force.
• His right to employment was being unjustly curtailed based on a past case where he was not found guilty.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Madhya Pradesh countered by asserting:

• For employment in the police force, impeccable moral character is a necessity.
• The petitioner’s prior involvement in a criminal case, irrespective of acquittal, raises doubts about his fitness for law enforcement duties.
• The mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically make a candidate eligible for recruitment.
• Police personnel must be held to a higher standard of conduct, as they are entrusted with upholding law and order.
• The rejection of candidature was a policy decision and not arbitrary.

Judicial Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the arguments and noted:

• A mere acquittal does not imply that a candidate must be selected.
• The nature of acquittal matters, particularly when it arises out of a compromise rather than being based on merit.
• In law enforcement, integrity and moral uprightness are critical traits.
• The employer has the right to determine suitability based on overall conduct and past records.
• There is a distinction between acquittal based on merit and acquittal based on compromise.

Considering these factors, the Court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was justified and that the State had acted within its rights to ensure that only candidates of impeccable character were recruited into the police force.

Legal Precedents

The Court relied on previous rulings where similar questions were raised regarding eligibility for employment in sensitive positions. Key judgments referenced included:

• Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) – This judgment ruled that the nature of acquittal in a criminal case is significant. If an acquittal is based on technical grounds or compromise, the appointing authority has the right to consider a candidate’s suitability.
• Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh (2013) – This case held that persons with a criminal past, even if acquitted, can be denied employment in law enforcement due to concerns regarding integrity.

Implications of the Judgment

The verdict sets a significant precedent for recruitment policies in law enforcement and other sensitive government roles. Some key takeaways include:

• Recruitment in law enforcement is not just about legal eligibility but also about moral integrity.
• Past criminal records, even in cases of acquittal, can influence employment decisions.
• Employers have the discretion to determine whether an individual’s past conduct aligns with the expectations of the role.
• Individuals with past criminal cases, even if acquitted, may face hurdles in securing government jobs, particularly in police services.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the rejection, ruling that the State was justified in denying employment to an individual with a prior criminal case. This judgment reaffirms the principle that certain professions require individuals with the highest moral integrity.

Petitioner Name: Abhijit Singh Pawar.
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh and others.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 26-11-2018.

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

Download Judgment: Abhijit Singh Pawar vs State of Madhya Prad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-11-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 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