FIR alone can't bar public employment

FCC rules mere accusation does not prove guilt

ISLAMABAD:

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that mere registration of a first information report (FIR) cannot constitute a ground for disqualifying a person from public employment, emphasising that an accusation does not amount to proof or presumption of guilt.

A division bench, led by Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, issued guidelines for federal and provincial governments, administrative authorities and law enforcement agencies to establish uniform, transparent and constitutionally compliant standards for antecedent verification during public-sector recruitment.

In its 10-page judgment, authored by CJ Khan, the court observed that a fundamental distinction must be maintained between the registration of an FIR and judicially established culpability.

"An FIR is merely an accusatory instrument and constitutes neither proof nor presumption of guilt," the judgment stated, adding that once an accused had been acquitted by a competent court, the appointing authority could not disregard the judicial determination or treat the underlying accusation as established misconduct.

The court further held that judicial acquittal must receive due recognition, subject to an objective assessment of a candidate's antecedents and suitability. It directed that adverse character verification must be based on authentic and independently verifiable material rather than conjecture or suspicion.

The judgment also laid down guidelines for the treatment of criminal cases in police character certificates. Where a candidate had been acquitted, the criminal case should not be reflected adversely in the certificate.

If proceedings were still pending, only their pendency could be disclosed, without any presumption of guilt. The court further emphasised that no candidate should ordinarily be excluded from recruitment without being provided a meaningful opportunity of hearing and a reasoned determination.

It said recruitment decisions must conform to prescribed statutory criteria, merit, proportionality and constitutional guarantees of fairness and equality.

The court examined the matter in the context of Articles 4, 10A, 18 and 25 of the Constitution, which collectively safeguard legality, due process, equality before the law, and protection against arbitrary exclusion from lawful employment.

Explaining the constitutional framework, the judgment said Article 4 required executive authorities to act within the law and on relevant considerations, while Article 25 prohibited discriminatory treatment lacking a reasonable basis and connection with a legitimate statutory objective.

It observed that Article 18, although not guaranteeing an absolute right to public appointment, protected eligible citizens against arbitrary impediments to lawful employment.