Introduction:
In Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod v. State of Gujarat and Others, decided in R/Special Civil Application No. 21060 of 2023, the Gujarat High Court delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the principle that mere pendency or prior registration of a criminal case cannot automatically disqualify a candidate from public employment—particularly when the FIR has already been quashed. The matter was heard by Justice Nirzar S. Desai, who set aside the order dated 12.10.2023 refusing appointment to the petitioner for the post of Unarmed Lokrakshak (Police Constable) despite his selection through due process.
The petitioner had successfully cleared the recruitment process initiated pursuant to a 2021 advertisement issued by the Lokrakshak Bharati Board. However, during character verification, authorities discovered that an FIR had been registered against him in 2018 at Dhanpur Police Station under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 427, 504, and 506(2). Though the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed by a co-ordinate Bench on 15.06.2023, the authorities—acting on guidance from the office of the Director General of Police—refused to permit him to join service.
The High Court was therefore called upon to determine whether the “shadow” of a criminal case, even after quashing, could continue to operate as a permanent bar to public employment in disciplined forces like the police.
Factual Background:
The petitioner had applied for the post of Unarmed Police Constable pursuant to the 2021 recruitment advertisement. He successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process, including physical tests, written examinations, and document verification. His name appeared in the select list, and he was otherwise found eligible for appointment.
During the character verification stage, the authorities discovered the existence of a 2018 FIR registered at Dhanpur Police Station. The allegations in the FIR pertained to unlawful assembly, rioting, trespass, causing hurt, mischief, insult, and criminal intimidation. The incident allegedly involved a dispute in which the petitioner was accused of giving kick and fist blows and verbally abusing the complainant’s mother-in-law.
Importantly, the FIR and all related proceedings had already been quashed by the High Court on 15.06.2023 by consent of parties. Thus, on the date when the appointment was denied—12.10.2023—no criminal case was pending against the petitioner.
Despite this, the authorities decided not to appoint him, citing the nature of the offences reflected in the character verification report and acting upon guidance from the DGP’s office.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Karishma Chauhan contended that the rejection of appointment was arbitrary and unsustainable in law. She pointed out that the online application form did not contain any specific column requiring disclosure of pending criminal cases. Therefore, there was no suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner.
It was further submitted that the FIR had been quashed by a competent court prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Hence, on the date of denial, there was no subsisting criminal proceeding. Denial of appointment on the basis of a non-existent criminal case amounted to penalizing the petitioner despite judicial exoneration.
Counsel emphasized that the allegations in the FIR were minor in nature—limited to giving kick and fist blows and verbal abuse. There was no allegation of heinous crime or moral turpitude of a grave nature.
Reliance was placed on the decision in Rameshbhai Danabhai Khetariya v. State of Gujarat, where it was held that employers must assess the nature of the offence, the surrounding circumstances, and the overall suitability of the candidate rather than adopting a mechanical approach.
It was argued that if mere registration of an FIR—even one later quashed—were treated as a permanent disqualification, it would open the door for malicious complaints aimed at ruining the careers of meritorious candidates.
Arguments on Behalf of the State:
Opposing the petition, Assistant Government Pleader Kinjal Vyas contended that appointment to the police force requires the highest standards of discipline, integrity, and moral character. Selection in a recruitment process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
The State argued that the appointing authority retains discretion to assess suitability based on character verification. Even if the FIR had been quashed, the underlying conduct reflected in the complaint could still be relevant for determining fitness for police service.
It was further contended that the authority had exercised its discretion after considering the nature of offences mentioned in the character verification report. Given the importance of maintaining public confidence in law enforcement agencies, the State maintained that the decision not to appoint the petitioner was justified.
Core Issue Before the Court:
The Court framed the central question succinctly: can the “shadow” of a criminal case continue to haunt and disqualify a candidate from public employment even after the FIR has been quashed?
This question required balancing two competing considerations: the need to maintain high standards in police recruitment, and the fundamental fairness owed to candidates who have been judicially cleared of criminal allegations.
Observations of the Court:
Justice Nirzar S. Desai made it clear at the outset that mere pendency or prior registration of a criminal case cannot operate as an automatic disqualification. The Court observed that if such a rigid approach were adopted, it would become easy for individuals with vested interests or personal grudges to lodge false FIRs to sabotage the careers of deserving candidates.
The Court noted that false or exaggerated FIRs are not uncommon in disputes arising from matrimonial discord, financial transactions, civil disputes, or minor altercations. Treating every such registration as a permanent stigma would defeat the purpose of fair recruitment.
The Court acknowledged that the employer does retain discretion in cases involving acquittal or quashing of FIRs. However, such discretion must be exercised objectively, reasonably, and with recorded reasons. In cases involving heinous offences, serious crimes involving moral turpitude, or acquittals based on benefit of doubt, denial of appointment may be justified.
However, in cases involving minor scuffles or petty disputes, a balanced and pragmatic approach must be adopted.
Application to the Present Case:
Applying these principles, the Court found that the allegations in the petitioner’s FIR were limited in nature and did not involve heinous crimes. Furthermore, the FIR had already been quashed prior to the impugned order.
The Court held that the authorities had erred in mechanically denying appointment without independently assessing the nature of the offence and the surrounding circumstances. The decision appeared to be influenced solely by the existence of the earlier FIR, without due consideration of its quashing or the minor nature of allegations.
Such a mechanical approach, the Court held, was contrary to principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Judgment and Directions:
Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the rejection order dated 12.10.2023. The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case afresh for appointment to the post of Unarmed Constable (Lokrakshak) in light of the Court’s observations.
The Court clarified that reconsideration would be subject to medical fitness and other statutory requirements. With these directions, the petition was allowed.
Significance of the Ruling:
This judgment reinforces the principle that public employment decisions must be based on objective evaluation rather than rigid formulae. It sends a clear message that while maintaining integrity in police recruitment is essential, fairness and proportionality cannot be sacrificed.
The ruling also safeguards candidates against malicious prosecution and misuse of criminal law to derail careers. It underscores that judicial quashing of an FIR restores a candidate’s legal standing and cannot be ignored mechanically by administrative authorities.