In a notable judgment, the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench, ruled that a pending criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not disqualify an individual from being appointed to government service. Justice Arun Monga, while delivering the judgment in Amrit Pal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13198/2024), underscored the importance of the presumption of innocence and deemed the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Amrit Pal, participated in the 2013 recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerk. After a prolonged delay, his name appeared on the provisional selection list issued in October 2022. However, during the document verification process, it was revealed that the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case filed by his wife under Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494 of the IPC.
Citing a 2019 state government circular barring candidates with pending criminal cases, the respondents rejected the petitioner’s candidature. The petitioner challenged this decision, and in a prior judgment, the High Court had directed the authorities to reconsider his case following the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. Despite this, the authorities reaffirmed their decision without adhering to the prescribed standards, leading to the present litigation.
Legal Issues
1. Presumption of Innocence vs. Pending Criminal Cases:
– Whether an individual can be denied public employment solely on the basis of a pending criminal case, particularly under Section 498A IPC, which pertains to matrimonial disputes.
2. Constitutional Safeguards:
– Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature violated Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (protection of personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
3. Compliance with Judicial Precedents:
– Whether the respondents acted in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, which provide clarity on handling pending criminal cases in employment matters.
Observations by the Court
Justice Arun Monga made several critical observations:
– Presumption of Innocence:
“Mere breakdown of a marriage cannot be treated as if the husband is the sole erring party, just because his wife has chosen to press criminal charges, which are yet to be proved.”
– Impact on Morality and Duties:
– The court questioned how the nature of the pending case—arising from matrimonial discord—would affect the petitioner’s ability to perform the duties of a Lower Division Clerk.
– Improper Decision-Making:
– The respondents failed to constitute a proper review committee as per the court’s earlier directions and ignored the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Avtar Singh.
– Precedent and Equity:
– The court cited the judgment in Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, which held that pending criminal cases cannot be a ground for denying appointments unless the charges relate to moral turpitude or result in a conviction.
Decision
The High Court quashed the order dated March 8, 2024, rejecting the petitioner’s candidature and directed the authorities to issue an appointment letter within 30 days. The appointment will be subject to the final outcome of the pending criminal trial. The court further instructed the petitioner to submit an undertaking acknowledging that he would not claim equity if convicted.
