Court emphasizes the need for objective consideration of criminal charges when deciding government job appointments.
In a landmark decision, the Gujarat High Court has set aside an order that denied Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod his appointment as an Unarmed Police Constable, due to a previously quashed First Information Report (FIR) against him. The court ruled that merely the pendency of a criminal case or a subsequent quashing of an FIR by the complainant's consent should not be an automatic ground for denying a government job. The judgment, delivered by Justice Nirzar S. Desai on January 29, 2026, highlights the necessity for the appointing authority to consider the nature and gravity of the offence objectively before making a final decision on employment.
The petitioner, Bharatbhai Sangod, had applied for the post of Unarmed Police Constable in response to an advertisement by the Lokrakshak Bharati Board in 2021. Despite being selected, his appointment was denied due to a criminal case registered against him in 2018, which was later quashed by the Gujarat High Court. The charges involved minor offences, such as giving kick and fist blows, which were settled amicably, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Advocating for the petitioner, Ms. Karishma Chauhan argued that the denial was not based on any suppression of criminal history, as the application form did not require disclosure of such details. Chauhan emphasized the minor nature of the allegations and the amicable settlement of the case. She warned against the potential misuse of criminal complaints to sabotage the careers of meritorious candidates.
On the other hand, the State, represented by Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Kinjal Vyas, defended the denial citing the need to maintain a police force with the highest standards of integrity and discipline. Vyas argued that the nature of the charges, despite being quashed, warranted caution.
Justice Desai, in his judgment, underscored the importance of an objective evaluation of the candidate's role and the gravity of the offence before denying employment. The court recognized the risk of malicious complaints being used to deny deserving candidates their right to employment. It noted that the authority must exercise discretion judiciously, considering the specific circumstances and nature of the charges.
The judgment mandates the reconsideration of Sangod's application, noting that quashed charges related to minor offences should not preclude employment unless exceptional circumstances exist. The ruling is a significant precedent for cases where candidates face employment denial due to past criminal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment - Quashing of FIR and appointment - Pendency of a criminal case or subsequent quashing of FIR by consent of complainant should not be an automatic ground for denying government job - Gravity of offence, role of candidate, and nature of offence must be considered objectively for final decision.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853781
