SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS APPOINTMENT DESPITE PENDING CRIMINAL CASE: MITUL KUMAR JANA ACQUITTED AND CLEARED FOR POLICE FORCE ROLE
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Facts of the Case:
This is an appeal case, against the High Court judgement of Calcutta which was held on 16th December 2010. The High Court had set aside an earlier order of the West Bengal Tribunal and ordered the Superintendent of Police to appoint Mithul Kumar Jana as a constable in the Police Force.
On September 6, 9, and 10, 2008, Mitul Kumar Jana underwent physical efficiency tests and an interview with the Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas. He was judged fit, placed on the merit list for constables, and given a 'Police Verification Roll' to complete in his handwriting. He submitted it on time.
During the police verification, it was established that Mitul Kumar Jana was involved in a criminal case (Case No. 124 of 2007) at Kakdwip Police Station. The charge sheet for this case was submitted on August 31, 2007, and the trial was still ongoing during his interview and physical examination. He was granted anticipatory bail on August 16, 2007 and ordinary bail on August 27, 2007.
The authorities suspected Mitul Kumar Jana of concealing his connection in a criminal case after studying the verification form. The Intelligence Branch confirmed that the case was still pending, thus they could not provide a definite opinion on his eligibility. As a result, his appointment was not granted.
Mitul Kumar Jana filed an application to issue his appointment letter with the West Bengal Administration Tribunal. But it was held that he was unsuited for the position since he had failed to mention about his previous criminal records.
But it was later stated by the Tribunal on November 23, 2010 that Mitul Kumar Jana did not suppress information. However his appointment will not be considered before his acquittal from the criminal charges.
Legal Provisions:
Section 147 of IPC: Punishment for rioting
Section 149 of IPC: Unlawful assembly
Section 447 of IPC: Criminal Trespass
Section 323 of IPC: Punishment for causing hurt voluntarily
Section 506 of IPC: Criminal Intimidation
Contention of the Appellant:
The appellants argue that the High court made an error in appointing the defendant during his ongoing criminal case. They contended that appointing someone while they are undergoing a trial will destroy the public trust in the police force and the morale of the police force will also reduce. They also argue that the main reason for the verification roll is to determine whether the appointed person is suitable for the public job and this is an important step to uphold the integrity of the Police force. The Appellants refer to various judgements which rules that even if any candidate is acquitted they can still be denied the job if they do not disclose that there is an ongoing criminal case against him.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents argue that the request of information given under column 12 of the verification roll was vague sine it included only the details of arrest, detention and conviction but was unclear on the point of the pending cases. They argued that the High Courts judgement to decide the appointment of Jana should be based on the outcome of the pending case was correct. They referred to a judgement which suggested that if the verification roll did not specify the requirement to disclose the information on the pending criminal cases then Jana cannot be held guilty for non- disclosure of the information.
Court’s Analysis:
On June 4, 2012, the accused Mitul Kumar Jana was found not guilty by the Chief Magistrate. The court ruled the prosecution's case insufficient to prove the charges against him. Consequently, the protest regarding the launching of the criminal lawsuit was not legitimate any longer. The dispute concerned access to a corridor belonging to the case and when the police talked to the woman, she just said that without any serious allegations. However, Jana's name was not correct as it was shown in the report but nobody has accused him of anything. Considering all this, the judiciary found nothing favorable to the plaintiff. The registration roll, given for authentication, required information on arrests, detentions, and convictions but not ongoing criminal litigation. Jana justly replied "No", as there was never a time that he was taken to jail, accused of crime, or found guilty. Therefore, he told the truth about every important aspect of the situation. The court relied on the case of "B. Chinnam Naidu" which held that unless the verification form asks about pending cases, not mentioning them does not amount to information suppression. This case supports Jana’s stand.
The court referred to different views on the same issue and cited the case of "Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others" for a more detailed approach. It laid down the procedure for dealing with information suppression and criminal charges. According to the Avtar Singh case, the verification form should be specific. Jana cannot be accused of suppression as he has given correct information. Jana’s offences were not serious or moral turpitude. Since he was acquitted and the charges were minor, the court saw no reason to stop his appointment.
The court held that Jana’s appointment should not have been ordered by the High Court immediately. Instead it should have left it to the employer’s discretion taking into account all the circumstances and the Avtar Singh case.
The court modified the High Court’s order. Police authorities re-examine Jana’s case and decide within 4 weeks. Authorities consider his suitability and past.
If appointed Jana will get notional benefits like continuity of service and pay fixation but not back wages or salary until the appointment date.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: JAMILA DALAL
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
