The Rajasthan High Court on Monday observed that denial of employment opportunities to a person acquitted of a crime is against the principle of reintegrating such people into society [Shankar Lal vs State of Rajasthan]..Justice Arun Monga was hearing a 28-year-old’s plea against the State’s refusal to appoint him as a constable in the State police department.“An acquitted individual cannot be stigmatized for having been part of a criminal trial in past. Moreover, denying an employment opportunity to an accused who is acquitted is against the principle of reintegration of such individuals into society,” the Court said..The observation was made while dealing with a plea by one, Shankar Lal, who had applied for a police job in December 2019. He later cleared the written examination and the physical efficiency test as well.However, in the meantime, he had been booked in a case under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly) and 323 (simple hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was acquitted by a trial court in August 2021.All of this was disclosed by Lal to the police department. However, taking note of the criminal case, Lal was denied the job as Constable on the ground that he had not made the disclosure when he applied for the post..The Court found there to have been no concealment by Lal on the date of his application since the first information report (FIR) against him was registered much later. “Furthermore, during document verification, the petitioner explicitly disclosed the details of the FIR in good faith. Thus, there is no evidence of willful misrepresentation or deceit,” the Court said..The Court also observed that an acquittal restores a person’s status as a law-abiding citizen and the argument that the same was not ‘honorable’ was merely speculative.“The acquittal remains valid unless set aside in appeal. No such appeal was filed by the state. Denying the petitioner an appointment solely due to an FIR/trial, in which he has been acquitted, amounts to punishing him,” the judge remarked..The Court further opined that the charges against Lal were not heinous or grave and did not indicate moral turpitude or a serious threat to law and order.Thus, it ruled that he was entitled to the benefit of his acquittal and ordered the State to issue him an appointment letter within 30 days..Advocate Sushil Solanki represented the petitioner. Advocate Sandeep Sethi represented the State..[Read Judgment]
