Those acquitted on benefit of doubt in cases of moral turpitude can be appointed in armed forces: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that persons acquitted in offences of moral turpitude on the ground of benefit of doubt, can be appointed to armed forces [Deepak Kumar v. Union of India and others]..Justice Jagmohan Bansal said that there is no absolute bar on appointing such persons to armed forces. The Court made the observation in a judgement directing the Central government to consider appointing a man acquitted in a case under Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) in 2019, as a Constable of the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). After examining the instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 2012 on the basis of which appointment letter earlier issued to the petitioner Deepak Kumar had been cancelled in 2022, the Court said,“As per instructions, if there is acquittal, a candidate who was implicated in an offence of moral turpitude, may or may not be appointed in the Armed Forces. In the instructions, the expression 'generally' has been used which shows that there is no absolute bar on the appointment where acquittal is on the ground of benefit of doubt. The competent authority in such cases can consider case of a candidate.”.Kumar’s father had joined the ITBP as a Constable in 1989 and passed away while in job in 1996. In 2012, he sought appointment on compassionate grounds. In 2018, Kumar was booked in a case of rape. A year later, he was acquitted. In 2022, the Centre issued an appointment letter to Kumar. During the appointment process, he disclosed about the criminal case and his acquittal. Following the disclosure, the authorities issued him a show cause notice asking why his appointment should not be cancelled as he was acquitted only on the ground of benefit of doubt. After Kumar filed a reply, the appointment letter was cancelled. .Challenging the cancellation of his appointment before the High Court, Kumar through his counsel contended that the prosecutrix (victim) and her mother had categorically deposed that he had not committed the alleged offence.The counsel representing the Centre argued that Kumar had not challenged the instructions issued by the MHA as per which if there is acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt or where the witnesses have turned hostile, a candidate shall generally not be considered suitable for appointment in the armed forces..Considering the law laid previously on the issue, Justice Bansal noted that it is imperative to look at the foundation of the judgement of acquittal in the case. The Court also noted that the yardstick to be applied in cases of appointment to a law enforcement agency ought to be more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy. After concluding that the instructions issued by MHA do not put an absolute bar on the appointment of those acquitted on ground of benefit of doubt, the Court found that the authorities had not examined the antecedents of the petitioner..His appointment letter has been cancelled on the sole ground that he was acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, the Court noted.“The respondent has not considered nature of alleged offence, age of the petitioner and age of the prosecutrix at the time of alleged offence. The petitioner is not involved in any other offence and he has already been acquitted. He had made truthful disclosure of concluded trial,” it added.It is a well known fact that it is very difficult to get a job, especially in the government sector, the Court said.The matter needs to be examined in totality, the single-judge underscored. “The denial of appointment to the petitioner ignoring that he was always bonafide and honest in disclosing his credentials would amount to indirect punishment for an offence in which he has been acquitted,” the Court opined..The Court further said the respondent, being public authority, was duty bound to consider age of the petitioner at the time of alleged offence, and the previous and subsequent history of the petitioner as well as other antecedents, particularly in view of truthful disclosures by the petitioner coupled with his acquittal.The Court concluded that the MHA instructions were mechanically applied in Kumar’s case and therefore, allowed his petition. “The impugned order dated 26.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for appointment within 04 weeks from today,” it ordered..Advocates Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal and Ojas Bansal represented the petitioner.Senior Panel Counsel Indresh Goel represented the Union of India and other respondents. .[Read Judgment]