INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Union
of India and Others v. Methu Meda, Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 2021,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the concept of ‘Honourable
Acquittal’ in Service and Criminal Jurisprudence.
ISSUE INVOLVED
The facts of the case are not necessary for the
purposes of this show and hence, the same are not being discussed here. Briefly
speaking, in the instant case, the Court considered whether a person who has
been acquitted in a criminal case, involving offence of moral turpitude such as
kidnapping etc., is fit to be appointed in governmental services or not.
MEANING
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth
Edition, ‘acquittal’ is “the legal certification that an accused
is not guilty of the charged offence.” Now, what is ‘Honourable Acquittal’?
According to the Court, ‘Honourable Acquittal’ happens when “the
acquittal is directed by the court on consideration of facts and material
evidence on record with the finding of false implication or the finding that
the guilt had not been proved, accepting the explanation of accused as just.” Conversely,
if the Prosecution could not prove the guilt of an accused for other reasons,
then such acquittal may be treated as ‘other than honourable’ by the
Court and consequent proceedings in service law may follow.
SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE V. CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
Further, it is a well-known legal proposition that
the principles used to adjudge guilt of a person in the service jurisprudence are
different from the ones in the criminal jurisprudence. According to the Courts,
even when a person is acquitted by a Criminal Court, then also such person’s
employer may deny employment to him on the ground that the nature of acquittal is
such that it casts doubts on the integrity of the person. In such light, the Court
considered the expression ‘Honourable Acquittal’ that is unknown to the
criminal statutes of our country and has been developed through judicial
exposition. In order to understand the concept of ‘Honourable Acquittal’
in a better manner, let us go through the other pertinent observations by the
Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court cited the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union
of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, wherein the effect and consequence
of acquittal in service jurisprudence were explained as follows: -
a. Information provided by the candidate regarding criminal
proceedings against him must be true and there should be no suppression.
b. While terminating employment, the employer may take
notice of special circumstances of the criminal case against the candidate/employee.
c. The relevant service rules are paramount and must be
taken into consideration.
d. Appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal
cases are pending is not proper.
e. If the offence involves moral turpitude and the acquittal
is on a technical ground, then such acquittal is not a clean or an honourable acquittal,
and such facts may be considered by the employer.
f. “Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri
or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”
Secondly, the Court discussed that “acquittal in a
criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates on the
post concerned” and in acquittal or discharge of a person, it “cannot
always be inferred that he was falsely involved, or he had no criminal
antecedent.” The Court further stated that “nonexamination of
key witnesses leading to acquittal is not honourable acquittal, in fact, it is
by giving benefit of doubt.”
Thirdly, the Court observed that “the standard of
proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and enquiry
conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a
criminal case, the onus of establishing guilt of the accused is on the
prosecution, until proved beyond reasonable doubt. In case, the prosecution failed
to take steps to examine crucial witnesses, or the witnesses turned hostile,
such acquittal would fall within the purview of giving benefit of doubt and the
accused cannot be treated as honourably acquitted by the criminal court. While,
in a case of departmental proceedings, the guilt may be proved on the basis of
preponderance and probabilities, it is thus observed that acquittal giving
benefit of doubt would not automatically lead to reinstatement of candidate
unless the rules provide so.”
Fourthly, the Court opined that mileage cannot be drawn by
the candidate or the employee merely “from the fact that in their
application and/or attestation form they have disclosed their involvement in a
criminal case.”
And lastly, the Court concluded by stating that “if a
person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an
offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would
not automatically entitle him for the employment. The employer is having a
right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the
Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged, and the
result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer
cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate.”
ENDING REMARKS
Those were the observations by the Court, and I hope that
the meaning and the nature of the term ‘Honourable Acquittal’ is clear
by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment