Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR

Rajasthan High Court ordered the appointment of Shankar Lal, a candidate for the post of constable, whose candidature had been rejected despite his acquittal in a criminal case. Justice Arun Monga held that an acquittal restores the presumption of innocence and cannot be undermined by subjective labels such as "not honorable."

The petitioner, Shankar Lal, had applied for a constable post in 2019 under the ST category. He cleared the written examination and physical efficiency test. However, his candidacy was rejected on the grounds of an FIR registered against him in 2020 for alleged offenses under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly) and 323 (causing simple hurt) of the IPC. Although Lal was acquitted in 2021, the rejection order cited the acquittal as "not honorable."

The Court firmly dismissed the state's argument, emphasizing that no distinction exists in criminal jurisprudence between "honorable" and other forms of acquittals. Justice Monga remarked, “Every acquittal is an honorable acquittal in the eyes of law. To impose additional conditions undermines the presumption of innocence and the finality of judicial verdicts.”

The Court relied on precedents, including the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling in Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, which affirmed that criminal acquittals, whether on technical grounds or lack of evidence, must be treated uniformly.

The Court noted that the FIR was registered after the application’s cutoff date, absolving the petitioner of allegations of concealment. Furthermore, the charges were minor and did not involve moral turpitude or compromise the integrity required for a constable’s position. By denying Lal the job, the state acted against principles of reintegration and fairness, effectively punishing him for being a part of a judicial process.

Justice Monga observed, “The denial of employment solely on the ground of acquittal being ‘not honorable’ creates a stigma that defies the purpose of rehabilitation and reintegration into society.”

The Court set aside the rejection order and directed the respondents to issue an appointment letter to Lal within 30 days of his filing the High Court’s order with the concerned authorities. It also reiterated that the state’s reliance on Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, was arbitrary in this context, as the petitioner had no ongoing criminal liabilities.

This judgment reinforces that mere involvement in criminal proceedings should not overshadow the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It also sets a precedent for fair treatment of acquitted individuals in employment, particularly in sensitive roles such as law enforcement.

The case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that procedural technicalities do not deny justice to the acquitted.

Date of Decision: November 18, 2024.