Police selection cannot be cancelled solely on a charge sheet after acquittal without supporting evidence.

The petitioner was provisionally selected for appointment as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) in Jagtial District pursuant to Notification Rc.No.41/Rect./Admn.1/2022 dated 25 April 2022, subject to verification of his character and antecedents.

In his attestation form, he disclosed his involvement in Crime No.222 of 2020, registered under Sections 354-D, 354-A, 376(2)(n), 376(3) and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The case was committed as S.C.No.22 of 2021, and the petitioner was acquitted by the Fast Track Special Sessions Court, Jagtial, on 12 September 2022 after the prosecution failed to establish the charges and material witnesses did not support the prosecution.

The Telangana Police Recruitment Board issued a show-cause notice dated 1 June 2024, to which the petitioner replied that he had been falsely implicated and had disclosed the criminal case.

By Memorandum Rc.No.34/Rectt./Genl.1/2024 dated 5 December 2024, the Board cancelled his provisional selection, holding that he was the sole accused in a serious case involving moral turpitude and that his acquittal was not a “clean acquittal” because witnesses had turned hostile.

The Court applied Rule 3(F) of the Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999, which requires a direct recruit to satisfy the authorities that his character and antecedents qualify him for appointment, and Rule 3(G)(vi), which disqualifies a person involved in an offence involving moral turpitude.

It held that mere involvement in a criminal case does not automatically establish moral turpitude and relied on State Bank of India v. P. Soupramaniane, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 608, which identifies factors such as whether the act shocks the moral conscience of society, whether the motive was base, the circumstances of the offence, and whether the accused can be regarded as depraved.

The Court also relied on Gugulothu Nagu v. State of Telangana, 2021 (6) ALD 727, for the principle that authorities must examine the substance of the trial court’s findings rather than mechanically characterise an acquittal as one based merely on “benefit of doubt”.

Applying Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1104, the Court held that although an employer may assess suitability even after a truthful disclosure and acquittal, an adverse decision must be supported by material showing that the offence was committed and linking the candidate to it; the State cannot act arbitrarily.

The Court found that the petitioner had truthfully disclosed the criminal case and that the respondents’ decision was based substantially on the charge sheet and the fact that prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.

The trial court had not merely acquitted the petitioner on a technical ground; it expressly found that the victim and material witnesses did not support the prosecution and that the remaining evidence was insufficient to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences.

The respondents failed to identify independent evidence demonstrating the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude or linking the petitioner to such an offence beyond the contents of the police report.

Further, the impugned memorandum mechanically invoked Rules 3(F) and 3(G)(vi) without separately assessing the petitioner’s character, antecedents, the effect of the acquittal, or the material supporting the allegation of moral turpitude.

Consequently, the cancellation order was held to reflect non-application of mind and arbitrary reliance on the petitioner’s mere involvement in the criminal case.

It held that the respondents had acted mechanically and arbitrarily by relying on the criminal case and the charge sheet without establishing, through relevant material, that the petitioner had committed an offence involving moral turpitude.

The respondents were directed to continue the petitioner’s selection for the post of SCT Police Constable (Civil) in Jagtial District, issue appointment orders, and send him for training within four weeks from receipt of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.