Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

High Court Quashes Cancellation of ITBP Appointment, Stresses 'Acquittal Shouldn't Detract Impact' in Public Employment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a important ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned the Union of India's decision to cancel the appointment of Deepak Kumar to the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP). The case, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, centered around the implications of a candidate's acquittal in a criminal case on their eligibility for public service employment.

Deepak Kumar's appointment was initially revoked by the ITBP following his acquittal on charges related to a case filed under the POCSO Act, 2012. The acquittal, which was extended on the benefit of doubt, was deemed insufficient by the ITBP, citing guidelines from the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Justice Bansal, in his judgment, emphasized the necessity of a nuanced approach in such cases, stating, "The term ‘benefit of doubt’ cannot detract from the impact of the acquittal.” This observation underlines a significant shift in the judicial attitude towards the treatment of acquitted individuals seeking public employment.

The court's decision was influenced by several precedents, including the landmark rulings in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Joginder Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh. These cases highlighted the importance of considering the nature of an acquittal and the candidate’s antecedents in their entirety before making employment decisions in sensitive sectors like the armed forces.

The High Court's directive to reconsider Kumar's appointment within four weeks is seen as a progressive step towards ensuring fairness in public employment. This decision reinforces the principle that acquittal in a criminal case, especially on the grounds of benefit of doubt, should not automatically disqualify a candidate from serving in positions of public trust and responsibility.

Date of Decision: 09.01.2024

Deepak Kumar VS Union of India and others

 

Similar News