Writ Petition No.58973 of 2017 (Individuals with criminal record denied recruitment in Punjab Police)

Various petitions against the same respondents were dealt with in this judgment by the Lahore High Court. All petitioners applied for the position of Head constables in response to an advertisement dated 05-12-16 for which they had cleared requisite tests and examinations. Their appointments for the position were withheld in reference to a circular issued by respondent number 2 on 26-06-14 to all heads of Police in Punjab whereby candidates who were involved in the criminal cases (either under trial or acquitted on multiple grounds) were barred from appointments. All petitioners had history of criminal cases and while some had been acquitted on multiple counts, all were denied appointments.

They filed writ petitions against this in court arguing that the circular dated 26-06-14 had been issued against the principles of natural justice and in violation of constitutional provisions as mere involvement in a criminal case did not impede their appointments, especially where the case had ended in an acquittal. They also argued that art.4 and art.25 of the Constitution mandated treatment without discrimination for all, and since some petitioners had been acquitted of their charges and some were under trial, restrictions on appointment were in breach of these articles. Supporting case law was also submitted for this argument.

The Assistant Advocate General, representing the respondents opposed these arguments by alleging that the petitioner had misrepresented in court as they had sworn false affidavits, to intentionally conceal the fact that criminal cases were in fact registered against them, irrespective of their conviction or acquittal. He also stated that the case law submitted by the petitioners was related to the acquittal of those facing criminal charges and did not address the issue of intentionally concealing facts.

Mudassir Khalid Abbasi J., after examining the case law referred to by the petitioners concluded that it did support the fact that exoneration from a criminal offence was the equivalent of the accused having committed no offence as a competent court had reached the decision which attached with the formerly accused, a double presumption of innocence. This in of itself did not prohibit individuals from seeking employment in departments of the government. But the decision by the respondents to exclude any individuals with a criminal history from being employed in a chosen department was a policy decision which was made clear by the issuance of a circular and by inserting a specific column in the application form for Head Constables, which was to be signed by the petitioners, upon submission. This was supported by the Police Rule 12.18 which required a verification of character to be submitted by applicants and installed a verification procedure to ensure all recruits complied with this rule. The judge noted that while most petitioners had been acquitted and only a few were facing trial, he distinguished this fact from “concealment of facts” and “deposing falsely at the time of application for getting employment in disciplinary force”.

He referred to a case of the Supreme court (Civil Petition No.1668-L and 1852-L of 2012) which involved a similar proposition where the respondent had applied for recruitment in the Police force and submitted falsely that he had no criminal record while three FIRs were pending against him. The Supreme court had held that a police official should be honest and law abiding himself and since the respondent had lied at the inception of his career, he could not be expected to carry out his future duties with honesty and diligence and was therefore correctly dismissed from service.

Relying on this and other cases Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, J. stated that the rule in question was a policy which over time had induced the practice that such decisions are not interfered by the Courts under the constitutional jurisdiction unless found arbitrary, unconstitutional and against public policy. He stated that the purpose behind the policy was to select persons not involved in any case of a criminal nature and besides this a candidate making false undertaking was not entitled to employment in a disciplinary force as the conduct of an employee is directly proportional to the service discipline. And while criminal cases acquit or convict for specific prohibited acts, rules regulating departments are put in place to ensure that the recruit is under examination to check for his/her compatibility with the place of employment. The nature of evidence and standards of proof are different in the two proceedings. Therefore, it became immaterial that some of the petitioners had been acquitted/ exonerated from criminal charges. In this particular case, involvement in a criminal case had rightly been made one of the factors for not acquiring employment in a law enforcing agency. Departments like police are fully equipped with the prerogative to lay down such criteria for recruitment.

The judge also stated that since the grant of relief under constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in nature, it works in conjunction with the settled principle of law that petitioners must come with clean hands before the Court. In the present case, ex-facie there was misrepresentation and facts were concealed by the petitioners, before entering into service. This vtiated their credibility and since they did not come to court with clean hands, any discretionary order for them was denied.

The petitions were therefore disposed of.