Jahanvi Agarwal
The Delhi High Court recently held that merely being named in a First Information Report (FIR) related to matrimonial offenses cannot be treated as an impediment to a public appointment. The court was of the opinion that it is inappropriate to deny employment to an individual based solely on the registration of an FIR in a matrimonial dispute. The court emphasized the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and held that an individual should not be subjected to adverse consequences merely on the basis of an FIR, as it is not proof of guilt.
In the instant case, a candidate (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) applied for the post of Sub Inspector in the Delhi Police wherein a piece of information was disclosed. There was an FIR against the candidate’s brother regarding dowry demand wherein the Petitioner and his family were accused. This FIR was discovered while verification which is recommended for the appointment as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police.
The said FIR under sections 313/323/406/498A/506/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered by the Petitioner’s sister-in-law, implicating the Petitioner and his family. Due to this FIR, his application for Sub Inspector was decided to keep pending till the final decision of the criminal case. However, the Petitioner successfully cleared all the examinations for the post of SI (EXE) Male in Delhi Police-2017.
The Petitioner in the case filed representations before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, requesting consideration of his candidature for the post of Sub Inspector. The Petitioner emphasized that no criminal case was pending against him, as his name was reflected in Column 12 of the charge sheet.
As the Petitioner did not receive a response from the respondents, the Petitioner subsequently filed an application before the Tribunal. It appears that the Petitioner sought the intervention of the Tribunal to address the issue and ensure consideration of his candidature for the Sub Inspector post.
The Petitioner challenged the order of the tribunal wherein the bench reiterated that even if an applicant truthfully discloses information regarding their background, the employer still has the right to consider the applicant’s antecedents and overall fitness for the position. In other words, the employer cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate solely based on the applicant’s disclosure.
This principle reflects the discretion that employers generally have when making hiring decisions. They are allowed to consider various factors, including an applicant’s background, qualifications, and suitability for the position. While truthful disclosure is important, it does not necessarily guarantee automatic appointment or employment.
It was noted by the court that in the charge sheet, the Petitioner’s name was placed in column No. 12. Additionally, it was explicitly stated that based on the statements of witnesses and records, the allegations of dowry demand against the Petitioner were found to be false, and the Petitioner was deemed innocent.
Court stated that “Merely naming in the FIR does not lead to an inference that the employer can keep in abeyance the employment of an applicant for an indefinite period, even if the applicant has been placed in column No. 12 of the charge sheet and has not been summoned.”
Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench held, “It is difficult to presume that the Petitioner would be a threat to the discipline of Police Force merely on account of registration of the aforesaid FIR wherein he has even not been summoned.”.
Name of the Case: Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police & Ors.
Diary Number: 5718/ 2023
Bench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Click here to access the order.