Minor offences cannot bar government jobs, says FCC

Notes that Rs500 fine cannot permanently disqualify constable candidate The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that a minor or less harmful offence should not have disproportionately severe consequences that permanently deprive an individual of the opportunity to enter government service. "A trivial or less harmful offence cannot have a severe consequence so as to rule out the possibility of induction into a government service," the court observed in a four-page judgement authored by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. Justice Najafi was part of a division bench led by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. Through the verdict, the FCC upheld a Peshawar High Court (PHC) decision directing the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government to consider a candidate for appointment as a police constable. It observed that although a crime remained a crime, the nature of the offence, the offender's disposition towards criminal conduct and the likelihood of committing further offences had to be considered before imposing lasting consequences on the individual. The case concerned a candidate who had been convicted in a criminal case registered under Sections 285 and 286 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), relating to negligent conduct involving fire, combustible matter or explosive substances. He had been fined Rs500 following a confessional statement. The court noted that a confession was often made through an understanding intended to avoid unnecessary consumption of the court's time and could also reflect an element of remorse. Its consequences, however, should remain proportionate to the offence rather than result in a lifelong disqualification from public employment. "Without educating such convict about the result of making a confessional statement, he cannot be bound for a life-long prohibition," the judgement stated. It added that the available record did not indicate that the candidate had been adequately informed of the lasting consequences of his confession before reaching an understanding under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court observed that no sufficient cause had been shown to justify treating the conviction as a permanent bar to the candidate's induction into government service. "Obviously, the punishment must commensurate with the crime and it cannot damage the entire life of such criminal," the judgement stated, adding that the candidate was not shown by the available record to be a habitual offender. The court further observed that an accused who admitted guilt became, in a sense, a friend of the court and could be entitled to reasonable leniency, depending on the circumstances. The judgement also underscored that the respondent enjoyed constitutional protection of his civil rights, alongside corresponding obligations, and was entitled to due process and a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. At the same time, the FCC acknowledged that police recruitment required particular scrutiny of candidates' character and suitability. Rule 12.14 of the Police Rules, 1934, requires recruits to possess good character, making careful assessment essential when selecting candidates for police service. The court also referred to paragraph 23 of Standing Order 6/2015, issued by the Punjab government's Police Department, which bars candidates with criminal records or affiliations with proscribed organisations from appointment. An amendment introduced on June 1, 2018, further required candidates to submit affidavits declaring that they were not involved in criminal cases when applying. However, the amended provision also addressed situations in which a case was registered after the application deadline, providing that candidature should not be rejected where the candidate had neither been challaned nor declared innocent through a compromise between the parties. The judgement noted that these provisions reflected the objective of keeping individuals with established criminal records out of the police service. However, an allegation contained in an FIR, without subsequent indictment or conviction, remained only an allegation. The court observed that FIRs could sometimes be registered because of personal enmity or ulterior motives, making the investigation and the investigating officer's findings relevant when assessing a candidate's record.