E-Paper
‘High moral conduct must for cops’: SC upholds job denial to man accused of molesting a minor
People called to serve in the police or other law enforcement agencies must possess high moral standards for the “sensitive” jobs they are called to perform, the Supreme Court said
People called to serve in the police or other law enforcement agencies must possess high moral standards for the “sensitive” jobs they are called to perform, the Supreme Court said in a Wednesday judgement in which it ruled that the “yardstick” for such appointments “ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy.”
The case in question was from Madhya Pradesh and involved a person, Bhupendra Yadav , who, in 2016,was denied the job of a constable in state police on the grounds that he had been tried in a case regarding molesting a minor girl, although he was acquitted in 2015.
To be sure, this wasn’t the case of an innocent man being charged of a crime he did not commit, and then denied a job on that very basis, despite being acquitted. As the top court noted, Yadav’s acquittal was not a “clean” one. The complainant (girl) in this case settled with him and the acquittal came about not on merits but on the technical grounds that the victim and other witnesses who initially supported the police case turned hostile.
But when he was denied the job, Yadav chose to go to court. The Madhya Pradesh high court in January 2018 directed the state to reconsider his appointment as he had truthfully disclosed his criminal antecedents and the case where he was acquitted was the only one pending against him. The state filed an appeal against this in the top court.
Setting aside the HC order, a bench of justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal said, “In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a constable.”
Justice Kohli, writing the judgment for the bench, said, “The standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a law enforcement agency must always be higher and more rigorous for the simple reason that possession of a higher moral conduct is one of the basic requirements for appointment to a post as sensitive as that in the police service.” The judgment noticed that a policeman is required to maintain law and order, deal with arms and ammunitions, apprehend criminals and protect life and property of public at large.
Yadav was accused of wrongfully restraining (IPC Section 341), stalking (IPC Section 354D) and harassing a minor girl -- acts punishable under Section 11D and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012. The allegation was that he persistently stalked her, threw a letter and flowers at her and insisted that she speaks to him despite her reluctance to befriend him.
As the trial proceeded, based on a compromise application filed by the victim and the accused, the charges framed under IPC Section 341 were settled but trial went on under the remaining offences. There, the victim and the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution turned hostile, leading to the trial court acquitting Yadav of all charges in October 2015.
The following year, Yadav cleared the written test for post of constable from the other backward class (OBC) category. He even cleared the physical test and was posted at Ujjain. The Superintendent of Police, Ujjain requested him to furnish details of his criminal background (if any) and on August 24, 2017, found him “unfit” for recruitment as the charges against him related to “moral degradation”.
The Supreme Court upheld the police authority’s order and said, “Higher the post, more stringent ought to be the standards to be applied. If the employer arrives at a conclusion that the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the post, he may not be appointed or continued in service.”
Yadav argued that he truthfully declared his involvement in a criminal case and it was not denied that he even got an acquittal. The bench said, “Quite clearly, this was not a case of clean acquittal,” noting how the complainant and the other witnesses turned hostile and the charges that were of serious nature involving moral turpitude.
