Nature of ‘crime’ to decide suitability for public job : HC
13 May 2013 6:12 AM IST
The Delhi High Court has held that if a person seeking public employment is found to be convicted for a penal offence, the nature of the act which resulted in the commission of the offence, the circumstance under which the act was committed and the age of the wrongdoer have to be kept in mind. It also discussed the scenario that what happens if the person is acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction.
A division bench of justices Pradeep Nandrajog and V Kameswar Rao held that the judgment of the criminal court has to be taken into consideration with all the aspects leading to the acquittal and the manner of acquittal and in particular whether it is on a benefit of doubt.
The court was hearing appeals on the question that, would the pendency of a criminal proceeding or a conviction or for that matter a criminal proceeding which has already terminated either in conviction or an acquittal, be a justified ground to deny entry into government service.
The court was hearing an appeal by the Delhi police which had challenged a CAT order, which had set aside the Delhi police order dismissing four constables who were later charged with suppression of information regarding their names being in FIRs. Two of them were acquitted by courts in which their names were in the FIR under section 307 (attempt to murder), while the cases of two could not satisfy the court.
'A man can be booked for the offence of overspeeding and perhaps may be convicted for parking a motor vehicle in a non-parking area. Would this man be of a character, compelling in public interest and for public good, not to induct him in public service? The answer would be in the negative. As against that, a man has committed murder or has broken into a departmental store and stolen cash.
Would this man be of a character, compelling in public interest and for public good, not to induct him in public service. The answer would be in the affirmative', said the court.
A division bench of justices Pradeep Nandrajog and V Kameswar Rao held that the judgment of the criminal court has to be taken into consideration with all the aspects leading to the acquittal and the manner of acquittal and in particular whether it is on a benefit of doubt.
The court was hearing appeals on the question that, would the pendency of a criminal proceeding or a conviction or for that matter a criminal proceeding which has already terminated either in conviction or an acquittal, be a justified ground to deny entry into government service.
The court was hearing an appeal by the Delhi police which had challenged a CAT order, which had set aside the Delhi police order dismissing four constables who were later charged with suppression of information regarding their names being in FIRs. Two of them were acquitted by courts in which their names were in the FIR under section 307 (attempt to murder), while the cases of two could not satisfy the court.
'A man can be booked for the offence of overspeeding and perhaps may be convicted for parking a motor vehicle in a non-parking area. Would this man be of a character, compelling in public interest and for public good, not to induct him in public service? The answer would be in the negative. As against that, a man has committed murder or has broken into a departmental store and stolen cash.
Would this man be of a character, compelling in public interest and for public good, not to induct him in public service. The answer would be in the affirmative', said the court.
Next Story
