In a significant judgment, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order that rejected a candidate's application for government employment based on a pending criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court held that the mere existence of such a pending case does not justify the denial of employment opportunities, especially when the allegations are yet to be proven.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had applied for the position of Lower Division Clerk in 2013. Due to administrative delays, the selection process extended over several years, culminating in the issuance of a provisional list in 2022, which included the petitioner's name. During the document verification stage, the petitioner disclosed the existence of a pending criminal case against him under Section 498A IPC, which pertains to allegations of cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. Based on this disclosure, the authorities rejected his candidature, citing the pending criminal proceedings as the sole reason.
Court's Observations
Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the case, critically examined the order that led to the rejection of the petitioner's candidature. The court noted that the order lacked a clear explanation of how the pending criminal trial impeded the petitioner's ability to perform the duties associated with the position or how it amounted to moral turpitude without any established finding of fact or criminal culpability. The court emphasized that the petitioner is, at this stage, merely an undertrial, and his guilt or innocence will be determined based on the outcome of the trial.
Presumption of Innocence
A cornerstone of the court's ruling was the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Despite the allegations under Sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 494 (marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse) of the IPC, the court underscored that the petitioner remains innocent in the eyes of the law until a court of competent jurisdiction establishes his guilt. Therefore, denying him employment based solely on unproven allegations was deemed unjust and premature.
Impact on Fundamental Rights
The court further observed that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature, based solely on pending criminal charges, infringed upon his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, while Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. By denying the petitioner equal treatment and depriving him of the opportunity to secure employment without a fair trial, the authorities were found to have violated these constitutional provisions.
Possibility of Reconciliation
Justice Monga also highlighted the potential for reconciliation between the petitioner and his wife, noting that the possibility of a compromise at a later stage could not be ruled out. The court cautioned against treating the breakdown of a marriage as an indication that the husband is the sole erring party, especially when the criminal charges pressed by the wife are yet to be substantiated.
Conclusion
In light of these observations, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's candidature and directed the authorities to reconsider his application without being influenced by the pending criminal case. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty and underscores the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights against premature and unjust administrative actions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.