HC upholds rule denying appointment to candidates with serious charges

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the validity of a provision of the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2015, which denies appointment to candidates against whom the charges have been framed for offences punishable with imprisonment for three years or more.

The Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the rule, stating that it was in line with the purpose of ensuring candidates with clean records for police service appointments.

The petitioner, among other things, had argued that the rule unfairly barred individuals merely because charges had been framed against them, even if those charges were based on presumption. The petitioner contended that such a rule lacked a clear nexus to the purpose of recruitment and should be declared ultra-vires.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta did not find merit in the petition. The court noted that the rule’s intention was to exclude candidates involved in serious offences, particularly those involving moral turpitude or offences that could lead to a sentence of three years or more. The Bench clarified that this approach was reasonable, as it aimed at ensuring that only individuals with clean records, especially for roles within the police service, were considered for recruitment.

“It is apparent that the State Government does not want to give appointment to any person who may be involved in the offences of such a nature which are culpable of moral turpitude or of such a nature which are punishable with imprisonment of three years or more. The obvious purpose is not to offer appointment in the police services to such persons,” the Bench ruled.

The court emphasised that the rule aimed at safeguarding the integrity of police services, but took a lenient view toward candidates charged with minor offences punishable with less than three years. For such cases, the state has been considerate, recognising that a person may become involved in less severe offences due to circumstances beyond their control.

“For minor offences, which are punishable for less than three years, the authorities have taken a lenient view and rightly so as in such circumstances, a person may get involved in minor offences which may be beyond his own control and for the said purpose, he should not be deprived of his rightful claim for earning his livelihood and appointment in the State services,” the Bench added.

The court, at the same time, noted that the rule did not grant unbridled power to the authorities. “We find the Rule to be within the four-corners of the purpose sought to be achieved. The same also does not give any unbridled power to the Authority to deny any person of his rightful claim of consideration for appointment and only limits a person against whom the charges have been framed,” the Bench asserted, while refusing to declare Rule 12.18(3)(b) ultra-vires to the Constitution of India.

Haryana Tribune