Case title:
Pramod Singh Kirar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Order:
2nd December 2022
Bench:
Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar
Parties:
Petitioner- Pramod Singh Kirat
Respondent- State of Madhya Pradesh
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court ordered the appointment of a candidate whose application was turned down because he had been charged with an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 498A of the IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-
- Anyone who puts a woman through cruelty when they are the husband or a relative of the husband is punishable by up to three years in prison and may also be subject to a fine.
- The term cruelty here encompasses the following-
- any intentional behaviour that could lead to the woman's death by suicide, serious injury, or a threat to her life, limb, or health (whether physical or mental),
- harassing the woman with the intention of forcing her or any of those close to her to comply with any unlawful demand for money, property, or valued security, or because they have failed to comply with that demand.
BRIEF FACTS
- In 2013, Pramod Singh Kirar sought for the position of constable and was approved for the position.
- He stated that he had previously been tried for the offence under Section 498A IPC and had been found not guilty in that case in the verification form itself.
- Later, his application was turned down because of his involvement in the criminal case.
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) upheld this denial, noting that if the candidate is found to have been involved in a criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be forced to appoint them—even in cases where the candidate has been cleared or the employee has made a declaration that accurately describes a finalised criminal case.
ISSUES RAISED
Is it valid to reject a candidate's candidacy on the grounds that he has been tried for an offence under Section 498A?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellant's learned counsel, strongly argued that the Division Bench of the High Court committed material error by allowing the appeal and setting aside the learned Single Judge's well-reasoned judgement and order.
- It was argued that the Hon. Division Bench of the High Court should have recognised that the case against the appellant was for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC that resulted from a marriage quarrel rather than a serious offence.
- It was also argued that despite the fact that the case for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC was dismissed in 2006 due to a settlement between the husband and wife, applications for the position of constable were only opened in 2013/2014 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court did not understand or take this into account.
- Further, the appellant could not have been penalised for something that occurred more than 7-8 years ago, especially since he was just about 18 years old and enrolled in school at the time.
- The appellant could not have been refused the position only because of an investigation into an offence under Section 498A of the IPC that took place seven years ago and ended in acquittal.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The learned deputy attorney general, speaking on behalf of the respondent-State, has cited the court's rulings in the cases of Avtar Singh (2016, 8 SCC 471) and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. vs. Anil Kanwariya (202, 10 SCC 136) in support of their arguments against the current appeals.
- It is argued that in the aforementioned decisions, the Court noted and held that when a candidate or employee is involved in a criminal case, the decision to hire that person with criminal antecedents ultimately rests with the employer.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The marriage disagreement that ultimately resulted in settlement outside of court was the cause of the offence for which he was tried but ultimately found not guilty, the Apex Court bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar remarked in its ruling on the appeal.
- Furthermore, it was noted that a crucial fact in this case was not suppressed.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough consideration of all the facts of the case, the court ordered his assignment to the position of constable within four weeks.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
