Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 615 (JK)

Kabindra Prasad Singh v. Union of India

2015-11-21

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This writ petition is filed praying to quash the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service, to quash the departmental proceedings/Summary Court Martial proceedings and charges framed against the petitioner and issue direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume the duty on the post of Sepoy/Driver on which the petitioner was appointed and was performing the duties before issuance of the dismissal Order. 2. The dismissal order was passed against the petitioner in the year 1988 on the ground that petitioner was unauthorisedly absent and he was in civil police custody. The petitioner was also involved in NDPS case and the case was tried as File No. 12 before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and the decision was rendered on 28.12.2001, wherein he was acquittal on the benefit of doubt. 3. In the operative portion of the judgment, it is stated that I am of the opinion that prosecution story is full of contradictions, doubts and suspension and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. The benefit of doubt was given to the petitioner, who, after dismissing the challan, was acquitted from the said charge. 4. On perusal of the acquittal order, it is evident that the acquittal was not on merits but was by giving the benefit of doubt. It is well settled proposition of law that a person who is in disciplined force must have good character and conduct. Here the petitioner was involved in a criminal case which was registered on 06.09.1987 under the NDPS Act and the said case was also decided by giving benefit of doubt. Thus, the character of the petitioner is not blameless. 5. Here the petitioner was involved in a criminal case which was registered on 06.09.1987 under the NDPS Act and the said case was also decided by giving benefit of doubt. Thus, the character of the petitioner is not blameless. 5. 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. 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. 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." 6. 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. 7. In the decision reported in (2014) 3 SCC 610 (State of West Bengal and others v. Sankar Ghosh), it is held that even after the person is acquitted in a criminal case, there is no bar to award departmental punishment and the order of punishment imposed by the department after departmental enquiry which was set aside by the Tribunal as well as affirmed by the High Court on the ground that the person was acquitted in criminal case, was set aside by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 8. In this case, as stated above, the petitioner was involved in offence under NDPS Act and the acquittal recorded is only on benefit of doubt. Thus, this Court is of the firm that the petitioner has not to be given any indulgence to serve the Indian Army on the post of Sepoy/Driver. 9. 8. In this case, as stated above, the petitioner was involved in offence under NDPS Act and the acquittal recorded is only on benefit of doubt. Thus, this Court is of the firm that the petitioner has not to be given any indulgence to serve the Indian Army on the post of Sepoy/Driver. 9. In such circumstances, no ground is made out to allow the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.