The employer has to take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules applicable to the employee at the time of taking a decision: Supreme Court of India
The employer must take into consideration all the Government orders/instructions/rules which are applicable to the employee at the time of making a decision. This remarkable judgement was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court of India headed by Justice SANJAY KISHAN KAUL in the matter of THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. V. LOVE KUSH MEENA [CIVIL APPEAL NO.3894 OF 2020]
The moot point which arose for consideration was whether a benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the respondent in a case charged under Sections 302,323,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] can create an opportunity for the respondent to join as a constable in the Rajasthan Police service.
The respondent and three others were charged with the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code and tried before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Laxman Garh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. The incident relates to 6.10.2008 at about 6 p.m. when, as per the complainant Babulal, one Jagdish and Dayaram came in a tractor for tilling a disputed field in jungle Patan. Tofli, mausi of Babulal forbade them to till the land and apparently stayed back in the field.
The court stated that “It is relevant to note that during the trial injured persons, Babulal, Om Prakash and Raju alias Rajesh obtained the permission of the Court and filed a compromise in favour of accused persons under Sections 341,323 of IPC which was approved but naturally, there could not have been any compromise qua the offences under Section 302/34 IPC.”
The court contested that “In the instant case the aspect of there being a time-lapse between the alleged offence and the recruitment process was emphasised to contend that the respondent herein was about 19 years of age when the incident occurred and had now carried his life further by being successful in a competitive examination some years down the line.”
Thus the court stated that “the impugned decision of the competent authority dated 23.05.2017 cannot be said to suffer from infirmity as being in violation of the circular when it is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court.”