FCC Restores Police Candidature, Rejects Old FIR Bar After Acquittal

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan has restored Abdul Latif’s candidature for the post of driver constable after police authorities excluded him because of an old FIR despite his acquittal. The Court held that a concluded criminal accusation could not become an automatic or permanent employment bar without independent, lawful adverse material. Judgment, page 3 Judgment, page 9

The FCC converted his petition into an appeal, allowed it and set aside the Lahore High Court’s judgment of 22 May 2025 along with the departmental determination excluding him. It directed restoration of his candidature according to merit and completion of outstanding recruitment formalities within 30 days of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Judgment, paragraph 18

The judgment in Abdul Latif v. Inspector General of Police and others, C.P.L.A. No. 2930 of 2025, is dated 16 October 2026. The FCC judgment register records its upload on 3 November 2026. Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan authored the decision, sitting with Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. Judgment, page 1 Judgment, page 10

Second on merit, but excluded over a concluded case

Abdul Latif secured second position on the merit list for driver constable. He had been acquitted on 11 October 2018, approximately four years before recruitment began. His representation against exclusion was rejected on 2 September 2024. His writ petition and intra-court appeal then failed before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in April and May 2025. Judgment, page 1 Judgment, page 2

The police themselves had issued character verification certificates on 13 October 2022 and 13 February 2024 reflecting no criminal record. The FCC treated those certificates and the final acquittal as material evidence requiring objective consideration. The authorities had instead relied mechanically on FIR No. 307/2017. Judgment, page 4 Judgment, page 5 Judgment, page 8

An accusation cannot substitute for a lawful suitability assessment

The Court distinguished an FIR from judicially established culpability. An FIR records an accusation; it neither proves guilt nor creates a presumption of guilt. After a competent court has acquitted a person, an appointing authority cannot simply treat the same unproved allegations as established misconduct. Judgment, page 2 Judgment, page 3

That does not end character verification. The police may examine the antecedents and suitability of a person seeking entry into a disciplined force. The assessment must be made honestly, on objectively verifiable material and within the law. The problem in Abdul Latif’s case was the absence of an independently established adverse basis for exclusion. Judgment, page 3 Judgment, page 4

The Court therefore preserved an important distinction between eligibility, suitability and legal disqualification. A power to assess suitability cannot be used to add an automatic disqualification that the governing law does not provide. Judgment, paragraphs 6–7

Rule 12.18 must operate within its statutory purpose

Rule 12.18 of the Police Rules, 1934 concerns verification of recruits’ character. The FCC held that its legitimate purpose of protecting the police force’s integrity did not authorize a permanent employment barrier merely because a candidate had once faced an FIR and was acquitted before recruitment. Judgment, page 3

On this record, the authority had to consider the actual acquittal, the official character certificates and any other relevant material. Disregarding those matters while continuing to rely on the accusation amounted to an arbitrary exercise of discretion and a failure to apply the law to the individual case. Judgment, page 4

The judgment also identified malice in law. That concept does not require personal hostility: it can arise when a statutory power is used for an unauthorized purpose, on irrelevant considerations or in disregard of material facts. The Court applied it to the mechanical exclusion despite the acquittal and subsequent police verification. Judgment, paragraph 12

The affidavit asked about present involvement

The wording of the recruitment declaration mattered. The FCC found that Abdul Latif’s affidavit concerned his present involvement in a criminal case. It did not expressly require disclosure of earlier proceedings that had already ended in acquittal. The Court therefore rejected the treatment of his declaration as concealment or misrepresentation. Judgment, paragraph 15

The High Court had equated past implication with present involvement. The FCC held that this misread the affidavit and overlooked the legal effect of acquittal. The holding turns on the particular declaration before the Court; it should not be read as permission to give an inaccurate answer when a form expressly asks about past criminal proceedings. Judgment, page 8

Fair consideration, rather than a guaranteed government job

The Court read the dispute through Articles 4, 10A, 18 and 25 of the Constitution. Executive action must remain lawful, relevant, fair and non-discriminatory. Article 18 does not itself confer an unconditional right to a public appointment, but the Court held that eligible citizens are protected against arbitrary impediments to lawful employment. Judgment, page 4 Judgment, page 5

Similarly, second place on the merit list entitled Abdul Latif to fair consideration under the recruitment criteria. It did not remove medical fitness or other mandatory requirements. The authorities also could not disregard their own favourable verification without cogent reasons or contrary material. Judgment, page 5 Judgment, page 6

The judgment reinforced its reasoning through the constitutional references to justice and verification in Articles 2A and 227, and through Islamic sources discussed in paragraph 13. It also considered the Indian decisions in Avtar Singh and Ram Kumar, and the European Court of Human Rights decision in Allen. The FCC expressly treated those foreign decisions as persuasive rather than binding. These references are reported as discussed in this judgment. Judgment, page 6 Judgment, page 7

The six recruitment safeguards

The FCC addressed competent federal and provincial authorities, particularly law-enforcement agencies, and set out these guiding principles for antecedent verification:

• An FIR by itself is not an automatic disqualification from public employment.
• Acquittal must receive due recognition within an objective assessment of antecedents and suitability.
• An adverse verification must rest on authentic, independently verifiable material.
• After acquittal, the case should not be reflected adversely in the police character certificate. Pending proceedings may be disclosed as pending, without a presumption of guilt.
• A candidate should ordinarily receive a meaningful opportunity of hearing and a reasoned decision before exclusion.
• Decisions must follow the applicable statutory criteria, merit, proportionality, fairness and equality. Judgment, paragraph 19 Judgment, page 10

The Court called for recruitment policies to be reviewed and harmonized with these principles, subject to the governing statutory framework. The guidance is directed against mechanical exclusion; it preserves lawful scrutiny supported by verified material. Judgment, page 10

What the 30-day direction actually requires

The operative order requires restoration of Abdul Latif’s candidature strictly according to his merit position. Outstanding statutory and procedural formalities, including medical fitness and other mandatory requirements, must be completed within 30 days after receipt of a certified copy. Once the prescribed requirements are fulfilled, the competent authority must issue the appointment order without unnecessary delay. Judgment, paragraph 18

The old FIR, which ended in acquittal, cannot by itself furnish a separate reason to withhold that appointment. The Court made no order as to costs. Reporting the outcome as an unconditional appointment within 30 days would omit the express statutory conditions and the event from which time runs. Judgment, page 9

The place of independent evidence

For comparison, the Supreme Court’s Jawad Abbasi service-misconduct decision upheld a departmental penalty despite criminal acquittal because misconduct had been independently established through a fair inquiry. Read together, the two decisions show why the existence or absence of an independent evidentiary basis matters. Abdul Latif’s recruitment case concerned mechanical exclusion without such a lawful basis. Judgment, page 5 Jawad Abbasi judgment, paragraphs 8–12.

For the different issue of a disclosed minor conviction, see the FCC’s Hanifullah police recruitment decision. That decision should be kept distinct from Abdul Latif’s case, which concerned an acquittal.

Sources and complete judgment

• Download the complete judgment PDF.
• Read the full judgment.
• Case particulars and searchable judgment summary.
• Official FCC PDF.
• FCC judgment register, recording upload on 3 November 2026.

Frequently asked questions

Can an old FIR alone bar police recruitment after acquittal?

The FCC held that it cannot create an automatic or permanent disqualification in the absence of independent, lawful adverse material. Authorities must assess the acquittal and suitability objectively within the governing recruitment rules. Judgment, page 3.

Did the Court order an unconditional appointment?

No. It restored Abdul Latif’s candidature according to merit and required completion of medical fitness and other mandatory formalities within 30 days of receipt of a certified copy. Appointment must follow fulfilment of the prescribed requirements without unnecessary delay. Judgment, page 9.

Does the 30-day period run from the judgment date?

The operative order starts the period on receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. It gives 30 days to complete the outstanding statutory and procedural formalities. Judgment, page 9.

Was the recruitment affidavit treated as concealment?

No. This affidavit asked about present involvement in a criminal case, and the candidate’s earlier case had already ended in acquittal. The Court found no express requirement in that declaration to disclose past proceedings ending in acquittal. Judgment, page 8.

What did the FCC say about police character certificates?

Its guidelines say that, upon acquittal, the criminal case should not be reflected adversely in the Police Character Certificate. If proceedings remain pending, only their pendency should be disclosed without presuming guilt. Judgment, page 9.

Can recruitment authorities still examine character and suitability?

Yes. That assessment must rest on authentic, independently verifiable material, relevant statutory criteria and a fair, reasoned decision. Acquittal and a place on a merit list do not themselves remove every other recruitment requirement. Judgment, page 10.