Pramod Singh Kirar Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-8935 OF 2022
Judges sitting: M. R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar
Decided on: 2 December, 2022

Introduction:
This case deals with the issue of cancellation of appointment of candidate to public employment due to his antecedents. It gives us a clear view on if any person being tried for non serious offence be given public employment without considering his criminal case history. This case has a chance of becoming a strong precedent since it considered every minute facts of the case and delivered a detailed judgment.

Background Of The Case:
The Appellant herein applied for the post of Constable in the year 2013 and was eligible for the post of Constable. He disclosed that he was involved in the criminal case earlier in his verification form. He was denied public employment although he was acquitted for the offence he was already tried.

The Appellant has filed the Writ Petition before the Supreme Court against the order of cancellation of his candidature by the High Court and to appoint him for the post of Constable with all benefits including 50% back wages from the date on which other batch mates came to be appointed on the post of Constable.

Issues:

1. Whether the order cancelling the appointment of the appellant is valid?
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to any benefit?

Denial Of Public Employment To Candidate With Criminal Antecedent:

The Respondent in the instant case has first relied on the judgment given by the High Court that if the Candidate is found to be involved in any criminal case, the employer has a right to observe the Candidate's past history and he cannot be forced to appoint just because he has disclosed his criminal antecedents.

It is the submission that the Bench of the High Court did not took into account of the fact that the case under Section 498A of IPC was resulted in acquittal in the year 2006 as a result of settlement reached between the husband and wife outside the Court. In this case, the invitation of applications for the post of constable was in the year 2013/2014 and it is not acceptable to penalize the appellant for the thing that has happened 7-8 years ago.

The Respondent has relied on another case in which it was held that when a candidate is involved in a criminal case, it is only the decision of the employer to appoint or remove such a person. The Court observed that the Appellant did not face any other prosecution for the other offences of IPC.

Effect Of Disclosure Of Criminal Antecedents:

The Court observed that it is not right to place reliance on the case of Anil Kanwariya as the facts are different in both cases. In the case of Anil Kanwariya, the candidate suppressed the antecedents and material facts and acquired appointment by fraud and suppression of material fact.

Also, it is the case that the candidate was convicted for some offence at the time of appointment. Whereas, in the present case, there was neither any concealment of facts nor any conviction of the candidate. Since the present case differs in two aspects from the Anil Kanwariya case, it is not wise to pass any judgment by relying on such case. The effect of the disclosure of material facts like criminal antecedent gives an upper hand for the appellant in the present case.

Judgment:
The Court delivered its judgment after considering two main aspects like disclosure of material fact and acquittal from the case. The Court held that the High Court is not justified in denying the appointment to the appellant for the post of Constable. The High Court's order terminating the service of appellant has to be quashed. The Court has passed an order to restore the appointment to public employment and to provide all benefits to the appellant from the date of actual appointment till date.

Conclusion:
The Court is justified in holding that the appellant should be reinstated to employment within four weeks. The Court has rightly considered the aspects of non suppression of material fact and acquittal. If the judgment was not in favor of Appellant, then it would be a bad example since thousands of applicants would be denied appointment merely because they were tried for an offence.

This judgment would serve justice since there are numerous false cases everyday on the basis of personal vengeance. Also, in the case, it was observed that the petitioner is accused of committing a minor offence at a young age that was neither significant nor horrific and it was impossible to call into question the petitioner's moral character under such circumstances.

The High Court has erred in not considering the abovementioned case, and delivering judgment solely on the basis of history of prosecution. Had the judgment not been reversed, there would have been a grave injustice to the candidates. There shouldn't be any material discrimination of the candidates on the basis of criminal record.