Petty Assault Or Rash Driving Not Affecting Force Discipline Cannot Automatically Bar Police Appointment: Gujarat High Court
Recruitment cannot be denied on quashed FIR; it must be based on objective assessment of gravity of allegations
Justice Nirzar S. Desai, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court while directing the State to consider the petitioner’s case afresh for appointment as Unarmed Constable (Lokrakshak), has held that an FIR for minor or petty offences which do not affect the functioning or discipline of the police force cannot bar an otherwise meritorious candidate from appointment.
Noting the quashed FIR that was made the basis for denial, the Court was of the opinion that while antecedents are relevant in recruitment to disciplined forces, denial of appointment must be founded on an objective, case-to-case assessment of the nature and gravity of the allegations.
Justice Nirzar S. Desai, observed, “…in cases where a person is accused of committing an accident on account of alleged rash driving that did not result in hospitalization, petty matrimonial disputes, or minor offences such as giving kick and fist blows, which do not affect the functioning or discipline of the police force and may have arisen out of ill will, grudge, or vested interests, the authorities are required to consider such cases positively for the purpose of appointing a selected candidate who is otherwise found meritorious and has no adverse record regarding character or integrity”.
“…considering the fact that the petitioner has sought appointment in the police force, the Court observes that in cases where acquittal is based on the benefit of doubt, or where witnesses have turned hostile, the authorities may be justified in denying appointment, having regard to the gravity of the offence. Such acquittals may relieve a person from punishment, but the nature or gravity of the offence may render the person unsuitable for a disciplined force like the police, and in such cases, it would be a matter of discretion for the appointing authority to decide whether to appoint the person”.
Advocate Karishma Chauhan appeared for the petitioner and Kinjal Vyas, Assistant Government Pleader appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, the petitioner had applied for the post Lokrakshak/SRPF pursuant to a 2021 recruitment advertisement issued by the Lokrakshak Bharati Board and was placed in the select list.
An FIR under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 427, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code was registered in 2018 had earlier been lodged against him.
The allegations, as noted by the Court, were limited to giving kick and fist blows and verbal abuse. However, the FIR and consequential proceedings were subsequently quashed by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in 15-06-2023.
Despite the order, the authorities, relying on guidance from the office of the Director General of Police, declined to issue the recruitment order by communication dated 12-10-2023.
Challenging the decision, the petitioner contended that there was no suppression on his part and that on the date of the impugned order, no criminal proceedings were pending. The State opposed the petition, submitting that recruitment to the police force demands the highest standards of integrity and that even past involvement in criminal proceedings justified denial of appointment.
Therefore, after considering the factual matrix and the nature of allegations, the Bench drew distinction between cases of suppression, doubtful acquittal and quashing on merits.
The Court observed that where a competent court has quashed an FIR after examining the merits and concluding that no offence is made out, such candidates stand on a different footing. In such situations, the appointing authority may not ordinarily deny appointment unless exceptional circumstances are specifically recorded in the order.
“…having regard to the nature of the offence and the role attributed to the petitioner, namely giving kick and fist blows to the complainant and abusing her mother-in-law, the respondents committed an error in denying appointment to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside…”, the bench noted in the judgment.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order dated 12-10-2023 and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case afresh for appointment as Unarmed Police Constable, subject to suitability and medical fitness.
Cause Title: Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:7456]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Karishma Chauhan, Shivam H. Chokshi, Advocate.
Respondent: Kinjal Vyas, Assistant Government Pleader.