LI Network
Published on: January 15, 2024 at 11:00 IST
In a recent judgment, the has affirmed that individuals acquitted in cases involving moral turpitude, based on the benefit of doubt, can be appointed to the armed forces.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal emphasized that there is no absolute prohibition on the appointment of such individuals to the armed forces, overturning an earlier cancellation of appointment for a man acquitted in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) in 2019 [Deepak Kumar v. Union of India and others].
The Court directed the Central government to reconsider the appointment of Deepak Kumar as a Constable of the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), setting aside the cancellation of his appointment letter in 2022.
The judgment examined the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) instructions from 2012, which formed the basis for the cancellation of Kumar’s appointment.
According to the Court, the instructions use the term ‘generally,’ indicating that there is no absolute bar on appointment when an acquittal is based on the benefit of doubt. The competent authority can evaluate the case of a candidate in such instances.
Kumar, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds after his father’s demise, faced a case of rape in 2018 and was subsequently acquitted in 2019. His appointment letter in 2022 was revoked after he disclosed the criminal case and his acquittal. The court noted that the cancellation was solely based on the acquittal ground, without considering the nature of the alleged offense, Kumar’s age, and the circumstances surrounding the case.
Justice Bansal emphasized that the MHA instructions should not be mechanically applied, especially in law enforcement agency appointments, where a more stringent yardstick is appropriate.
The Court highlighted the duty of the respondent, a public authority, to consider various factors, including the age of the petitioner at the time of the alleged offense and truthful disclosures.
Concluding that the MHA instructions were mechanically applied in Kumar’s case, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider his appointment within four weeks.
