Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by a successful candidate for the post of Constable DCPO in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), seeking the quashing of the letter dated 03-09-2024, which declared him “unsuitable” for employment on the grounds that the criminal case pending against him had been stayed, thus, violating the principle of presumption of innocence, as the case was yet to be adjudicated. A division bench of Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., sets aside the impugned letter and allowed candidate to join the post of Constable DCPO in the CISF subject to the outcome of the criminal case arising out of the FIR dated 30-08-2023, registered at Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) under Sections , , , , , , , and of .
The petitioner successfully cleared the recruitment process for the post of Constable DCPO in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). However, his appointment was denied after the 19th Standing Screening Committee of the CISF, during its meeting held on 26-07-2024, deemed him “unsuitable” for employment. The committee based its decision on the fact that the petitioner was facing a pending criminal case involving serious charges under various sections of the Penal Code, 1860 including Sections 376, 377, 354, and others. Despite the proceedings in the criminal case being stayed by the Allahabad High Court in an earlier order dated 23-02-2024, the Screening Committee justified its decision on the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that a chargesheet was already filed.
The petitioner challenged this decision, contending that he was being unfairly punished for a criminal case that was yet to be adjudicated and that denying him employment would irreparably harm his career prospects.
The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to quash the Screening Committee’s decision and the consequential letter dated 03-09-2024, issued by the respondents, which disqualified him from joining the CISF. The petitioner argued that the criminal case arose out of a matrimonial dispute with his wife, and the proceedings had already been stayed by the Allahabad High Court . He emphasized that he had earned the position in the CISF through merit and that the denial of employment based on pending charges would permanently bar him from realizing his career aspirations. He further contended that the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty should apply in his favor.
The petitioner argued that the criminal case against him stemmed from a personal matrimonial dispute and was sub judice. He submitted that mere allegations, even if serious, could not be the sole basis for disqualifying him from public employment, particularly when the proceedings were stayed by a competent court. He also highlighted the irreparable harm that would result from the loss of employment, as such opportunities were rare and career-defining.
The respondents maintained that the charges against the petitioner were of a serious nature and warranted his disqualification from public service. They emphasized the CISF’s high standards for moral and professional conduct, asserting that appointing a candidate facing such allegations could tarnish the integrity of the force. They argued that the Screening Committee acted within its discretion to safeguard the institutional values and reputation of the CISF.
The Court delved into the principle of judicial restraint concerning decisions made by expert bodies like Screening Committees. While acknowledging the respondents’ argument that Courts should be cautious in interfering with such decisions, it disagreed with the conclusion reached by the Screening Committee in this case.
The Court noted that the petitioner could not be penalized for pending criminal charges that had not yet been adjudicated. The Court also underscored the irreparable harm caused by denying him employment in the CISF, as such opportunities might not arise again. Striking a balance, the Court held that the petitioner’s appointment could be made conditional upon the outcome of the criminal case. It reasoned that any adverse finding against the petitioner in criminal proceedings would empower the respondents to terminate his services without following the usual procedural safeguards.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned letter dated 03-09-2024, issued by the respondents and directed that the petitioner be allowed to join the CISF as a Constable DCPO. The Court clarified that his appointment would be subject to the outcome of the pending criminal case. If the petitioner were ultimately convicted, the CISF would be free to terminate his employment without conducting an inquiry or providing notice. Additionally, the Court stated that the petitioner would not be entitled to claim any service benefits if convicted, apart from the pay earned during his tenure.
[Vikas Nagar v. UOI, W.P.(C) 13913/2024, decided on 14-11-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Navin Chawla
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sahil Mongia, Mr. Yash Yadav & Ms. Sanjana Samor, Advs. with petitioner in person.
Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC with Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Adv. AC Raj Kumar, CISF.
Vikas Kumar v. State of UP, Application No. 2115 of 2024
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .