Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 611 (JK)

MUNEER HUSSAIN v. UNION OF INDIA

2015-11-20

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This writ petition is filed, challenging the order passed on the ground of unauthorised absence. Petitioner could not report for duty as he was detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. The detention order was not challenged and after detention period was over, he was released. 2. The person involved in anti-national activities, who is detained under the Public Safety Act, is not entitled to continue in the service of Border Security Force as the Border Security Force is a disciplined force and integrity towards the nation is more important. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 (Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh) has held that even for appointment of police person, the character of the person is the most important aspect to be verified by the appointing authority and where the person who is involved in a criminal case even after acquittal is desirable to the post can be verified and in fact the order quashing cancellation of appointment made by the tribunal as well as High Court was set aside on the ground that the person to be selected has to be beyond any criminal background in paragraph 35, it is held thus:- "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. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even hand." 4. In the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 603 (State of M.P. and Ors. v. Parvez Khan), it is held that a candidate to be recommended to the police services or to be appointed on compassionate ground in police force must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. The person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated and the persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force. The order passed by the High Court giving compassionate appointment was set aside. 5. Applying the said judgment to the facts of this case and the petitioner having been found involved in anti national activities and having been detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 while serving in the Border Security Force, is not fit to continue in the force. 6. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. No costs.