Image of police force has been tarnished, says Sindh High Court

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday observed that the image of the police force has been tarnished in recent times, as instances of police officials behaving in a wayward manner by misusing their power are in the public domain and are a matter of concern.

An SHC division bench comprising Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Justice Adnanul Karim Memon said that this factual position is also a cause of great concern these days in our country.

They said that on numerous occasions we come across the involvement of police officials in routine as well as heinous crimes, and even if they are apprehended, they are let off by courts due to faulty and supportive investigations by their brethren by extending the benefit of the doubt.

The observations of the court came in a case pertaining to the non-appointment of a police constable despite his selection for the Malir police in 2022. The bench said that primarily, the police force is a disciplined force, as it shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order, and public order in society. The court said that people repose great faith and confidence in the police force, so it must be worthy of that confidence.

The SHC said that this must stop, and that courts are also required to play their part, letting this issue be decided by the executive/appointing authority, which in all fairness is in a much better position to ascertain the facts and the relevant ground realities.

Petitioner Atta Mohammad said he was declared a successful candidate for the post of police constable in Malir in 2022 but was not being issued his appointment letter on the basis of the registration of a case in which he had already been acquitted by the trial court before the initiation of the recruitment process.

The additional advocate general argued that it had been established on record that the petitioner had a criminal history, so he cannot be a member of the disciplined force and does not deserve any leniency by the court, as this would hurt other members of the force if he is allowed to join the police force.

After hearing the arguments of the counsel, the court said that if the candidate was acquitted of the charges before the initiation of the recruitment process, it means there was no accusation against him when he had applied for the subject post, which does not disqualify him from participating in the recruitment process.

The bench said that the stigma is no more in the petitioner’s character, as the competent court of law had cleared him from the charges and the state had failed to file an appeal against his acquittal of the criminal charges, in which situation the candidate cannot be disqualified for a civil/public post.

The court said that normally, a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude should be regarded as ineligible for governmentservices, but in cases where the appointing authority feels that there are redeeming features and reasons to believe that such a person has cured himself of the weakness, specific approval of the government may be obtained for their employment.

The bench said that in the instant case, the petitioner has rather been acquitted of the criminal charges based on evidence, and it is well-settled law that once the civil servant is acquitted in a criminal case, he cannot be awarded any punishment on this very charge by the department or be disqualified for the post because the acquittal is for all future purposes.

The court said the petitioner was not denied appointment due to concealed information or character issues but the sole reason for the denial was the pendency of one criminal case, in which the petitioner had already been acquitted, so mere pending cases may not be the sole reason for disqualification from civil/public posts.

The bench directed the competent authority to scrutinise the candidature of the petitioner afresh, and if he is found unfit for the police force, he can be adjusted on any ministerial post positively, as he had been declared a successful candidate. The high court said that the candidature of the petitioner must be processed strictly under the recruitment rules within a month, and that a compliance report should be submitted.