Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. Leave granted. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi ("the Appellant") is in appeal, aggrieved by a common judgment of the Delhi High Court by which the Respondents (hereafter referred to as "candidates/applicants") were directed to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable of Delhi Police.

2. An advertisement was issued in the year 2009, inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up vacancies in the cadre of constable in the Delhi Police. It is not in dispute that the Respondent candidates, in their applications, disclosed that criminal cases had been instituted against them-as well as the outcome of those cases. Except in SLP(C) 18396/2014 where the applicant Deepa Tomar was facing trial, the criminal cases had ended in compromise. After due consideration of their candidature, and in terms of S.O. No. 398/2010, the Appellant referred their cases to a Standing Committee, to assess their suitability. In Deepa Tomar's case, the consideration was deferred since she was facing trial in criminal proceedings where she was charged with committing the offence of kidnapping Under Section 364 Indian Penal Code. By various orders, which were impugned in separate proceedings by the candidates, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the applications of the candidates, upholding their pleas, and quashing the orders of the Screening Committees. All the orders of the CAT were impugned by the Appellant before the High Court. They were dealt with and considered by the common impugned order, which rejected the Appellant's petitions, Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The main argument by the candidates was that having regard to the terms of the applicable Standing Order as well as the decisions of this Court, the rejection of their candidature was unsustainable because of non-application of mind and further the orders were made in a mechanical manner. By the impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ petitions and quashed the rejection of the candidatures of the Respondents.

4. It is urged by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Ms. Madhavi Divan, appearing on behalf of the Appellant that the impugned judgment is erroneous inasmuch as the Division Bench lost sight of the fact that the Standing Orders could not be so read as compelling the authorities to select applicants whose conduct was not satisfactory in the opinion of the Screening Committee. The Appellant relies upon the rulings of this Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Anr. v. Mehar Singh MANU/SC/0620/2013 : (2013) 7 SCC 685 as well as the observations of the three-Judge Bench in the Court's judgment in Avtar Singh v. UOI and Ors. MANU/SC/0803/2016 : (2016) 8 SCC 471.

5. The Appellant urges that in all the four cases, the candidates faced criminal proceedings-in most of them, even charges were framed after which the cases against them ended in a compromise. In the case of Ms. Deepa Tomar, the candidate was not only Accused but also charged for committing the offence of kidnapping. She stood trial but was acquitted on the ground of insufficient evidence. It was submitted that having regard to the nature of the offences that the candidates were alleged to have committed and the outcome of the cases, the authorities were justified in concluding that they were unsuitable for employment in the concerned post, i.e. as Constables of Police.

6. It was argued by Mr. Singhal appearing on behalf of two candidates, Shiv Singh [SLP(C) 13282/2014] and Prem Singh Choudhary [SLP(C) 18396/2014] that the Screening Committee dealt with their cases in a perfunctory manner and did not appreciate the entirety of facts. With respect to the Respondent Shiv Singh, it was urged that though in the first information report (FIR), allegations could have led to grave offences, including charge Under Section 353 Indian Penal Code, as a matter of fact the charges framed were not in relation to these offences. Ultimately, the alleged victims had no difficulty in entering into compromise with the candidate, which led to compounding of the offences that he was said to have committed. It was submitted that in the case of Prem Singh Choudhary/Respondent too, it could not be said that the criminal charges (i.e., of committing offences Under Sections 143/343/341 Indian Penal Code) were either grave or involved moral turpitude. In this case too, the Accused/candidate was not convicted; and a compromise was entered into with the informant.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/candidates relied upon the observations of the High Court that in cases involving allegations of commission of offences Under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, especially where the offenders were youth from rural backgrounds, it cannot be said that the conduct involved moral turpitude and that the Courts should be alive to the realities that in such areas, brawls and fights are common place. It was also emphasized that there is a tendency of exaggerating on the part of the informants whenever such incidents occur, to falsify the facts and implicate the offenders.

8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Deepa Tomar drew the attention of the court to the findings recorded by the trial court. It was submitted that an overall reading of the facts narrated by the trial court would show that the relationship between the candidate and her husband Joginder was strained and that therefore, she and her family members were Accused of having abducted him; he was reported missing. Learned Counsel submitted that having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution which was considered by the concerned court of competent jurisdiction, the candidate was exonerated of the offences. These had to be duly considered and appropriate weight given, to the findings of such court by the Screening Committee. Learned Counsel submitted that the Screening Committee did not apply its mind and merely went by the label, i.e. the seriousness of the offence to hold the candidate Deepa Tomar unsuitable-an entirely arbitrary outcome.

Analysis and Conclusions

9. For the sake of clarity, a tabular chart, indicating the involvement of each of the Respondent, in respect of various offences, the course of the trials, their outcome, etc, is set out below:

S. No.	Name of writ Petitioner candidate	Case No.	FIR	Offence	Remarks
1.	Raj Kumar	SLP(C.) No. 13285/2014	FIR No. 283/07, dated 14.10.2007. Under Sections 143, 451, 323, 336, 382 Indian Penal Code	Cognizance taken Under Section 147, 451, 323, 336 Indian Penal Code	Acquitted by Order dated 22.05.2008 Under Sections 147 and 336 as charges were not proved. Compromised charges Under Sections 451 and 323.
2.	Shiv Singh	SLP(C.) No. 13282/2014	FIR No. 410/2009 Dated 18.10.2009 Under Sections 323, 341, 325, 34 Indian Penal Code.	Cognizance taken Under Sections 323, 341, 325, 34 Indian Penal Code	Acquitted by order dated 01.12.2019; acquitted Under Sections 323, 341, 325, 34 Indian Penal Code based on the compromise deed dated 01.12.2019.
3.	Deepa Tomar	SLP(C.) No. 18397/2014	FIR dated 26.05.2002 Under Sections 364, 506, 120 Indian Penal Code	Cognizance taken Under Sections 364, 120B Indian Penal Code	Acquitted by order dated 04.05.2011 (pg. 67-106). Acquitted Under Sections 120B, 364 Indian Penal Code as the prosecution was not able to prove the charges beyond the doubt. Therefore, Court held that the Accused as entitled to the benefit of doubt.
4.	Prem Singh Choudhary	SLP(C.) No. 18396/2014	FIR No. 38/2007 dated 14.02.2007 Under Sections 143, 341, 323 Indian Penal Code	Cognizance Under Sections 323, 341, 325, 34 Indian Penal Code	Acquitted by order dated 04.12.2009 Under Sections 323, 341, 325, 34 Indian Penal Code on the basis of compromise with the informant.

10. Standing order No. 398/2010, which is relevant for an appropriate decision in this case, reads as follows:

STANDING ORDER No. 398/2010 POLICY FOR DECIDING CASES OF CANDIDATES PROVISIONALLY SELECTED IN DELHI POLICE INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL CASES (FACING TRIAL OR ACQUITTED).

During the recruitments made in Delhi Police, several cases come to light where candidates conceal the fact of their involvement in criminal cases in the application Form/Attestation Form in the hope that it may not come to light and disclosure by them at the beginning of the recruitment process itself may debar them from participating in the various recruitment tests. Also the appointment if he/she has been acquitted but not honourably.

In order to formulate a comprehensive policy, the following Rules shall be applicable for all the recruitments conducted by Delhi Police:

1). xxx xxxxxx

2). xxx xxxxxx

3). If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal cases, complaint case, preventive proceedings etc. and the case is pending investigation or pending trial, the candidature will be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the case. After the court' judgment, if the candidate is acquitted or discharged, the case will be referred to the Screening Committee of the PHQ comprising of Special Commissioner of Police/Administration, Joint Commissioner of Police/Headquarters and Joint Commissioner of Police/Vigilance to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police.

4). If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement in criminal case, complaint case, preventive proceedings etc. both in the application form as well as in the attestation form but was acquitted or discharged by the court, his/her case will be referred to the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police.

5). xxx xxxxxx

6). Such candidates against whom charge-sheet in any criminal case has been filed in the court and the charges fall in the category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though later acquitted or acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or the witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the Accused person, he/she will generally not be considered suitable for government service. However, all such cases will be judged by the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess their suitability for the government job. The details of criminal cases which involve moral turpitude may kindly be perused at Annexure 'A'.

7). Such cases in which a candidate had faced trial in any criminal case which does not fall in the category of moral turpitude and is subsequently acquitted by the court and he/she discloses about the same in both application form as well as attestation form will be judged by the Screening Committee to decide about his/her suitability for the government job.

8). xxx xxxxxx

9). If any candidate is discharged by extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 this will also not be viewed adversely by the department for his/her suitability for government service.

11. Annexure A to the above policy which refers to offences involving moral turpitude is extracted below:

1. Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code)

2. Offences against the State (Sections 121-130, Indian Penal Code)

3. Offences relating to Army, Navy and Air Force (Sections 131-134, Indian Penal Code)

4. Offence against Public Tranquility (Section 153-A & 153-B, Indian Penal Code).

5. False evidence and offences against Public Justice (Sections 193-216A, Indian Penal Code)

6. Offences relating to coin and government stamps (Section 231-263A, Indian Penal Code).

7. Offences relating to Religion (Section 295-297, Indian Penal Code)

8. Offences affecting Human Body (Sections 302-304, 304B, 305-308, 311-317, 325-333, 335, 347, 348, 354, 363-373, 376-376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 377, Indian Penal Code)

9. Offences against Property (Section 379-462, Indian Penal Code)

10. Offences relating to Documents and Property Marks (Section 465-489, Indian Penal Code)

11. Offences relating to Marriage and Dowry Prohibition Act (Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code)

12. Mehar Singh noted that Clause 3 of the Standing Order, which refers to the Screening Committee, comprises of senior police officers. This committee assesses candidates' (previously implicated for an offence, but against whom charges are terminated, for any reason), suitability for appointment. Clause 6 prescribes that candidates who faced charges involving serious offences or offences involving moral turpitude and who are later acquitted giving benefit of doubt or because the witnesses turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the Accused person shall not generally be considered suitable for government service. Each of such cases is to be considered by the Screening Committee manned by senior officers.

13. It is evident from a reading of the applicable Standing Order along with Annexure-A that in relation to certain offences, acquittal or exoneration of an Accused candidate, per se would not entitle her or him to consideration. In this regard, in relation to offences listed in Annexure A inter alia, those who are Accused of having committed offences Under Sections 325-333; 363-373 and 379-462; would fall within the mischief of Clause 6. Upon an overall analysis of the Standing Order, this Court is of the opinion that an acquittal or discharge in a criminal proceeding would not per se enable the candidate to argue that the authorities can be compelled to select and appoint her or him. This Court, in this regard, held inter alia as follows:

The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force.

14. This Court has, in the past, on several occasions, dealt with questions which are similar, if not entirely identical to what is involved in the present case, to wit, whether in the event of exoneration or acquittal of an applicant/candidate arrayed as Accused of various offences is a decisive factor for consideration of his or her suitability. Several judgments in the past had appeared to draw a distinction between "clean" acquittal of Accused individuals on the one hand and those acquitted or exonerated on account of benefit of doubt. Similarly, where candidates were charged with grave offences involving moral turpitude as well as larger outcomes were examined. Another area which engaged this Court's attention was the effect of non-disclosure of pending criminal cases. Matters came to a head when all these issues were referred to authoritative decision by a larger three judge Bench. In Avtar Singh (supra), the three-judge bench, after detailed discussion of the various circumstances that arose when public authorities are called upon to deal with such cases, recorded its conclusions in the following manner:

15. There are subsequent judgments too in this regard which have followed the ruling in Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors. MANU/SC/1042/2014 : (2015) 2 SCC 377; Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. MANU/SC/0007/2018 : (2018) 1 SCC 797 and Anil Bhardwaj v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Before proceeding to analyze the facts in each appeal, it would also be useful to reproduce the relevant extract of this Court's ruling in Mehr Singh (supra) where it was held as follows:

16. Turning now, to the individual facts of each case, the candidate in the Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) 13285/2014 (Raj Kumar), is alleged to have committed offences Under Sections 143/323/336/451 Indian Penal Code along with other individuals. The candidate is alleged to have committed trespass along with others into the house of the complainant, armed with lathis and jailis, snatched the jewellery of the complainant's brother's daughter-in-law. According to the allegations, there was a scuffle resulting in injuries. Apparently, the existence of criminal charges had been disclosed by the candidate which led to rejection of the case. The order of rejection of candidature¹ issued by the Screening Committee noted that the candidate's explanation was in regard to an antecedent family dispute between his family and that of the informant. The order noted that a chargesheet was filed in the court and cognizance was taken. Later, during the pendency of trial, both parties compromised the case so that it could be compounded Under Section 451/323 Indian Penal Code with the approval of the Court and that the candidate was later acquitted by order dated 22.05.2008 in the absence of adequate evidence for charges Under Section 147/336.

17. The impugned order proceeds on the footing that the complainant was found to be suffering from a simple hurt. It also held that Raj Kumar was aged 20 years when the incident occurred. The Division Bench was of the opinion that having regard to these facts, the Screening Committee approached this task in a mechanical manner and rejected Raj Kumar's candidature.

18. In the opinion of this Court, the conclusions recorded in regard to Raj Kumar are unsustainable. The Screening Committee went through the case records and noted that a compromise was recorded with the approval of the Court with respect to two offences whereas in the graver offences, the candidate stood trial but was acquitted on account as there was no sufficient evidence and that "material witnesses" did not support the prosecution story. In the opinion of this Court, that the compromise recorded in respect of the offences, that were compounded (and the acquittal for lack of evidence) is apparently so on account of material witnesses not appearing or turning hostile, was a relevant factor that the Screening Committee could and did consider. In these circumstances, the conclusions of the High Court cannot be supported.

19. Shiv Singh, Respondent, in another case was Accused of committing offences punishable Under Sections 323, 341, 325, 34 Indian Penal Code. A charge sheet was filed before the trial court on 12.11.2009. The court also recorded that the offences were prima facie made out against the Accused persons-including the Respondent Shiv Singh. Later, however, a compromise was arrived at between the Accused and the complainant, and an order of composition was issued on 01.12.2009, by the trial court. The Screening committee considered the charge sheet and the order of the trial court, and having regard to the nature of offences involved, was of the view that the candidate was not suitable, because of his propensity to indulge in such behavior without fear of law. The High Court faulted the Screening Committee's order, as a mechanical exercise of power, and reasoned that no charge of assaulting the modesty of a woman was made against the candidate and that the charge of theft was unsubstantiated. The court was also of the opinion that the candidate was young.

20. This Court is unable to agree with the impugned order. Here, there is no dispute that a charge sheet was filed in court, in respect of various offences, including Section 325. The Respondent candidate apparently thereafter approached the informants, and compromised the dispute. The approach of the High Court, in considering if evidence existed (in support of criminal charges), its credibility, especially after a charge sheet was filed, and on the basis of its appreciation of those materials, without the benefit of all the relevant records and evidence in judicial review, cannot be sustained.

21. In the case of Prem Singh Choudhary, (the Respondent in SLP (C) No. 4304/2013) an FIR was registered in a police station at District Alwar, alleging that he committed offences punishable Under Sections 143/323/341 Indian Penal Code. He and four others were named by the complainant, Mukesh for forming an unlawful assembly; he also alleged that the Accused were carrying lathis and jeli (a farm implement) and the Accused, along with others assaulted him. The matter was compromised; consequently, the court recorded acquittal. The Screening Committee took note of these facts; the appointment order previously issued, was consequently withdrawn. The order was quashed by the CAT. The High Court, commented that the Accused was not charged Under Section 325 Indian Penal Code; that he was young, and aged 22 years; that the informant had not suffered serious injuries. After noting that one of the offences the candidate was charged with was Section 325, the High Court stated "that no material or evidence whatsoever was presented wherefrom it could be gathered that the complainant suffered grievous injuries." It was held that in the light of the materials before the police, the informant had given an exaggerated account, of the incident, which the Screening Committee rejected, mechanically.

22. Again, in Prem Singh Chaudhary's case, this Court is of the opinion that the scrutiny of the materials, by the High Court, was as if it was sitting in appeal over the decision of the Screening Committee. That body had the benefit of the overall record of the candidate, in the context of considering his or her suitability. Its conclusions should not have been brushed aside, on the ground that it showed mechanical application of mind, or that the materials did not show involvement in a grave or serious offence.

23. Deepa Tomar is the last candidate in the present batch of appeals. She was Accused along with her father in CM No. 198/2003 for an offence punishable Under Sections 120-B/364 Indian Penal Code. Both were Accused of having abducted her husband, Jitender Singh. After facing trial, both Accused were acquitted, by judgment dated May 04, 2011. The screening committee was of the view that the acquittal was by granting benefit of doubt, and that the candidate was unfit for appointment as a Constable (Female) in the Delhi Police because she was Accused of having committed a heinous crime i.e. of abduction and that the victim, her husband (Jitender) was still untraceable.

24. While quashing the decision of the Screening Committee, the High Court reasoned that the incident was of 2001; Jitender's father complained in 2002 and voiced his suspicion against the candidate and her father. The High Court also observed:

meaningfully read, the testimony of Jitender's family members was suggestive of the fact that Deepa and Jitender were not having a strained relationship but because of problems in the house of her in-laws Deepa had to leave for her parental house and stealthily Jitender used to visit Deepa or so his parents suspected. If this be so it would not stand to any logic or reason for Deepa and her parents to have contrived to abduct Jitender and make his disappear. Regretfully, the Screening Committee has gone by the label of the offence and not the facts on which Deepa and her father were acquitted. The Screening Committee has also overlooked the fact that in her complaint lodged Under Section 498-A/406 Indian Penal Code Deepa has made no accusation against her husband.

25. In the case of Deepa Tomar, the intensive factual scrutiny which led the impugned order to conclude that the decision of the screening committee is not sustainable, is impermissible Under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is evident from the screening committee's order, that it was aware of the judgment, as well as the materials before the trial court. Significantly, before the candidature was cancelled, the Deepa was issued with a show cause notice and she duly responded to it. The committee had the benefit of considering that, as well as her overall record, when it drew its conclusions. The fact appreciation by the High Court, and the intensive scrutiny of the evidence, in the opinion of this Court to conclude that Deepa could not have been implicated in the offence, based on inferences drawn Under Article 226 of the Constitution, is an exercise of overreach of judicial review process.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

27. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan MANU/SC/0152/1989 : (1990) 1 SCC 305 this Court held that

28. Again, in Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya MANU/SC/0370/2018 : (2018) 15 SCC 796 it was iterated that

31. For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby sets aside the common impugned judgment and the orders of the CAT, quashing the orders issued by the Appellant, declining appointment to the Respondent candidates. The appeals are accordingly allowed, without any order on costs.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.