SREEMANIKANDADAS K Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Handyman under the 2 nd respondent at the Kannur International Airport, has approached this Court seeking directions to the respondents to appoint him to the said post pursuant to Exhibit P2. The petitioner contends that he has been offered a contract appointment for three years as Handyman on 17.11.2018. He was required to produce a police clearance certificate for the purpose of such appointment. However, the police clearance has been rejected by Exhibit P3 on the ground that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner in Ambalathara Police Station as Crime Nos.311/15 and 310/17.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be a ground for denying employment to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner can be considered as guilty only when the commission of the crime is proved against him and he is convicted of the offence. Relying on the decision of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Guru Dutt Ranga v. Government of NCT of Delhi [2006 (92) SLJ 163(CAT)], the learned counsel contends that involvement of a person in a criminal case does not mean that he is guilty and that the denial of employment on the ground that a person is an accused in a criminal case is completely untenable in law. The decision of the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(1996)4 SCC 17] where even a conviction under Section 294 IPC was not found to justify termination from service and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Brijendra Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan [(1997)7 SLR 655] are relied on to contend that the denial of employment on the ground of pendency of a criminal case is completely unjustified. The learned counsel would also place reliance on a decision of the learned single Judge of this court in W.P(C).No.30661 of 2015 where the issue as to pendency of a criminal case and the eligibility for appointment of a part time official receiver under the provisions of the Insolvency Act, 1955 had been considered. It was held that mere pendency of an FIR registered against a person would not be sufficient to find him to be disqualified for being considered for public appointment. Until the allegations are proven by procedure known to law, the accused person cannot be held to be disqualified for such appointments, it is contended.

(3.) A statement has been placed on record by the 8 th respondent stating that the petitioner is an accused in two criminal cases and that police clearance cannot be granted in the said circumstance.