Court says pending criminal case justified withholding joining initially, but acquittal removes the bar and entitles selected candidate to service benefits notionally
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld an order allowing a selected candidate to join as a Basic Computer Instructor after he was acquitted in a criminal case that had earlier stalled his appointment.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma dismissed a special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and other authorities against a Single Judge’s decision dated May 2, 2025.
The case arose from an advertisement issued on February 1, 2022, by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for the post of Basic Computer Instructor. The respondent, Jeetendra Kumar Choudhary, was selected and issued an appointment order on April 13, 2023, subject to satisfactory verification of his character and antecedents. During verification, authorities found that a criminal case was pending against him in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Toonga, Jaipur, involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
On that basis, the State authorities refused to permit him to join service, leading him to approach the High Court. The Single Judge had allowed the writ petition, holding that a pending criminal case alone could not disqualify him from public employment and directed the authorities to permit him to join with consequential benefits in notional terms from the date similarly placed candidates joined.
Before the Division Bench, the State argued that its Department of Personnel circulars dated July 15, 2016 and December 4, 2019 supported the decision to withhold appointment where criminal proceedings were pending. It also contended that a person facing criminal charges should not be allowed to enter government service until the case is decided.
The Bench noted that, in principle, the State was justified in withholding joining during the pendency of criminal proceedings. The Court observed that a pending criminal case leaves the candidate’s character and suitability under a cloud, and the authorities cannot be expected to presume acquittal in advance. On this aspect, the Bench disagreed with the Single Judge’s broader view that a candidate could be entitled to join even during the pendency of the criminal case.
However, the Court gave decisive weight to the fact that the respondent was acquitted during the pendency of the appeal. Referring to the trial court’s findings, the Bench noted that the complainants were found to be the aggressors, the medical evidence did not support the allegations, and no weapon was recovered from the petitioner. In light of the acquittal, the Court held that there was no longer any legal bar to his appointment.
The Bench also held that the department’s circulars could not override the effect of a criminal acquittal. Since the candidate had already been selected, he was entitled to be allowed to join service. The Court further upheld the grant of notional consequential benefits, including seniority and service benefits from the date other selected candidates were allowed to join.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the State’s special appeal and affirmed the Single Judge’s order.
Bottom Line :
A candidate facing criminal charges cannot be disqualified from public employment merely on the basis of pending criminal proceedings. However, acquittal in the criminal case clears doubts about character and suitability for public employment, enabling the candidate to join the service and claim consequential benefits notionally.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
