LI Network
Published on: January 14, 2024 at 13:43 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered a significant judgment, clarifying that individuals acquitted in cases involving moral turpitude, based on the benefit of doubt, can be appointed in the armed forces [Deepak Kumar v. Union of India and others].
Justice Jagmohan Bansal emphasized that there is no absolute prohibition on appointing such individuals to the armed forces.
The Court’s ruling came in response to a case where the appointment of a man acquitted under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) was canceled by the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).
Examining the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) instructions from 2012, which led to the cancellation of the petitioner Deepak Kumar’s appointment in 2022, the court stated,
“As per instructions, if there is acquittal, a candidate implicated in an offense of moral turpitude may or may not be appointed in the Armed Forces. The expression ‘generally’ has been used, showing that there is no absolute bar on the appointment when acquittal is on the ground of benefit of doubt. The competent authority in such cases can consider the candidate’s case.”
Deepak Kumar, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds due to his father’s service with the ITBP, faced a case of rape in 2018. He was acquitted a year later. In 2022, he received an appointment letter, disclosing the criminal case and his subsequent acquittal during the process.
However, after disclosing the information, the authorities issued a show cause notice, leading to the cancellation of his appointment. Challenging this decision in the High Court, Kumar argued that both the victim and her mother had stated he had not committed the alleged offense.
The Court, taking into account previous judgments, stressed the need to scrutinize the foundation of the acquittal judgment and noted that standards for appointment in a law enforcement agency should be stricter than routine vacancies.
The Court found that the MHA instructions did not impose an absolute bar on appointing those acquitted on the grounds of benefit of doubt. It emphasized that authorities had failed to examine the petitioner’s antecedents and cancelled his appointment solely based on his acquittal.
“The respondent has not considered the nature of the alleged offense, the petitioner’s age, and the prosecutrix’s age at the time of the alleged offense. The petitioner is not involved in any other offense, and he has already been acquitted. He made a truthful disclosure of the concluded trial,” the Court added.
Considering the difficulty of securing a job, especially in the government sector, the Court urged a comprehensive examination of the matter. The judgment concluded that the MHA instructions were applied mechanically in Kumar’s case and directed the respondents to reconsider his appointment within four weeks.