ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court laid down guiding principles for antecedent verification in public recruitment, as it serves the legitimate objective of maintaining the integrity and discipline of the police force.
The judgment, authored by Chief Justice FCC Amin-ud-Din, directed the competent federal and provincial authorities, particularly law-enforcement agencies, to ensure adherence to the following;
(i) Mere registration of an FIR shall not ipso facto constitute a disqualification from public employment.
(ii) Judicial acquittal shall receive due recognition, subject to an objective assessment of the candidate’s antecedents and suitability.
(iii) Adverse character verification shall be founded upon authentic, independently verifiable material rather than conjecture or suspicion.
(iv) Upon acquittal, the criminal case shall not be reflected adversely in the Police Character Certificate; where proceedings remain pending, only their pendency shall be disclosed, without any presumption of guilt.
(v) No candidate shall ordinarily be excluded without a meaningful opportunity of hearing and a reasoned determination.
(vi) Recruitment decisions shall conform to the prescribed statutory criteria, merit, proportionality and constitutional guarantees of fairness and equality.
The judgment said that the competent authorities should accordingly review and harmonize their recruitment policies with the foregoing principles, subject to the applicable statutory framework. Administrative discretion cannot be employed to perpetuate an unproved criminal accusation as an indelible stigma or perpetual impediment to public employment. Such safeguards are indispensable to preserving institutional integrity, public confidence and the rule of law.
Briefly stated, the petitioner (Abdul Latif), having secured second position in the merit list for the post of Driver Constable, was denied appointment on account of his previous involvement in a criminal case, notwithstanding his acquittal vide judgment dated 11.10.2018 and subsequent issuance of police character certificates reflecting no criminal record. His representation was rejected by the competent authority on 02.09.2024, whereafter his writ petition and subsequent Intra-Court Appeal were dismissed by the High Court vide judgments dated 10.04.2025 and 22.05.2025, respectively. Hence, the instant petition for leave to appeal.
The judgment said that a fundamental distinction must be maintained between the mere registration of an FIR and judicially established culpability. An FIR is merely an accusatory instrument and constitutes neither proof nor presumption of guilt. Once an accused has been acquitted by a competent court, the appointing authority cannot disregard such adjudication or treat the underlying accusation as established misconduct. Although the authority retains discretion to assess a candidate’s antecedents and suitability, such discretion must be exercised bona fide, on objectively verifiable material and strictly in accordance with law.
It noted that mere involvement in a criminal case, followed by acquittal, cannot, in the absence of independently established adverse material, constitute a perpetual disqualification from public employment. Any contrary approach would substitute administrative suspicion for judicial determination, offending the constitutional principles of legality, fairness and equal protection of law.
The Police Rules, 1934, govern recruitment, appointment and antecedent verification within the Police Department. Rule 12.18 thereof must be construed in harmony with the statutory scheme and constitutional principles of legality, fairness and non-arbitrariness. While antecedent verification serves the legitimate objective of maintaining the integrity and discipline of the police force, such authority cannot be extended to impose disqualifications beyond those contemplated by law.
Mere involvement in a criminal case, culminating in acquittal prior to recruitment, cannot, ipso facto, constitute a perpetual disqualification from public employment. Any contrary interpretation would impermissibly enlarge the scope of Rule 12.18 and substitute administrative suspicion for judicial determination, contrary to the maxim expressumfacitcessaretacitum.Administrative discretion must, therefore, remain confined to its statutory purpose and be exercised upon legally sustainable grounds.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments