Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Pradeep Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.1159/2007 NEW DELHI THIS THE 5th DAY OF JULY, 2011 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Chander, R/o Village Samaspur Khalsa, P.O. Ujwa, New Delhi-07. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sanjay Ghosh) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. D.C.P. (4th Bn. DAP) Headquarters, PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Respondents. (By Advocate: Mrs. Renu George and Mr. B.N.P. Pathak) : ORDER : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A):
This Tribunal decided 14 OAs including the present OA by a common order dated 24.04.2008. The Applicant figured in Table-II of the order and his application was dismissed in the said order. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant moved the Honble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.5279/2008 which was decided on 21.09.2010. The Honble High Court finding the present Applicants case similar to that of Vinod Kumar [WP(C) No.6931/2008] decided on 17.09.2009], reproduced the order of the said case and decided the WP(C) No.5279/2008. We take the extract of the relevant part of said order which reads as follows :-
6. A perusal of the impugned decision shows that the Tribunal went into the quality of the evidence which led to the acquittal and the seriousness of the charge. The underline ethos of the impugned decision is that the Tribunal has not treated mere brush with criminal law as disentitling a person to public employment. The Tribunal has held that those who were charged of being involved in serious offences and notwithstanding the acquittal, quality of evidence though pertaining to the acquittal, disentitled such persons from public employment.
7. But we find that the Tribunal has discussed the issue on merits only qua 5 applicants before it.
8. We find that pertaining to Vinod Kumar no specific findings have been rendered for the reason there is no discussion at all pertaining to Vinod Kumar save and except listing the name of Vinod Kumar in table 1 of a chart prepared. We note that the Tribunal has prepared the charts under table 1 and table 2 in para 5 of the impugned decision, to be used as a charter to further discuss but further discussion is confined only to 5 cases. Under the circumstances we dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 24.4.2008 dismissing OA No.2137/2006 filed by Jitender Singh; the petitioner.
9. OA No.2137/2006 is restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
10. Since parties are represented before us we direct that the parties shall appear through their counsel before the Registrar of the Tribunal on 18.10.2010. At least two weeks prior thereto, the petitioner would move a formal application enclosing therewith a copy of the present decision so that the file can be placed before the Registrar on 18.10.2010. xxxx xxxx xxxx
2. It not being in dispute that as in the case of Vinod Kumar, petitioners case has not been considered by the Tribuna, we dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 24.4.2008 and restore OA No.1159/2007 filed by him with a direction to the Tribunal that the same shall be decided as per law.xxxx
3. Since parties are represented before us we direct that parties shall appear through their counsel before the Registrar of the Tribunal on 18.10.2010. At least two weeks prior thereto, the petitioner would move a formal application enclosing therewith a copy of the present decision so that the file can be placed before the Registrar on 18.10.2010.
2. In view of the above directions of the Honble High Court, we are adjudicating the present OA afresh.
3. The factual matrix of the case for the Applicant in the present OA revolves around the fact that during the year 2006, Delhi Police advertised on 28.2.2006 in the leading Newspapers to fill up 2134 vacancies for the post of Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police. The Applicant submitted his application and was successfully cleared the selection process for recruitment but he was denied the opportunity to serve Delhi Police. His character and antecedents were verified from the authorities concerned which revealed that he was involved in a criminal case [FIR No.63/98 U/s 454/323/380/411/34 IPC, in PS Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi). He was acquitted by the Trial Court vide its order dated 18.1.2001. It is the Applicants case that inspite of the fact that he disclosed his involvement in criminal case in the Application and Attestation Forms, and his acquittal in the criminal case, his candidature was cancelled vide order dated 25.6.2007 (page-12) after issuing him Show Cause Notice on 14.6.2007 (Annexure-A1). Being aggrieved, he moved this Tribunal in the current OA. The Applicants case was examined by the Screening Committee duly constituted by the Commissioner of Police. The 3-Member Committee met on 30.05.2007, where the Committee took into account the nature of involvement of the Applicant in the criminal case, gravity of the offences, the judgment of the Trial Court, and the grounds of acquittal in the case. It is stated that the committee was guided by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.1996 in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5340 of 1995) in the case of Delhi Administration versus Sushil Kumar (1996-11-SCC-605). The Committee observed that the Applicant was involved in a criminal case involving criminal intention of theft and had been acquitted by the Trial Court on the principal ground that the prosecution failed to identify the culprit due to the main witnesses turning hostile. Thus, the competent authority took into view the observation made by the Screening Committee and the judgment of the Trial Court, found the Applicant not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and his candidature for the said post was cancelled by the letter dated 25.6.2007, which he assailed in the present OA. As stated within, the present OA was decided along with other cases vide order dated 24.4.2008, against which the Applicant moved the Honble High Court of Delhi and the matter had been remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Relief(s) prayed for in the present case are as follows :-
1. To call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the impugned SCN dt. 14.6.07 & Order dt. 25.6.07 and direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of Constable (Ex.) with all consequential benefits including Seniority/promotion and arrears of pay.
2. To award in favor of the applicant and
3. To pass any order or records which this Honble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.
4. The Applicants case is that he has voluntarily revealed his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal when he filled up his Application and Attestation Forms. The Respondents were aware of his criminal case and allowed him to appear in the test and interview which he successfully qualified. If the Applicants involvement in the criminal case per se debars or stands as an impediment, the Respondents should not have allowed him to appear in Physical, Written, Interview and Medical tests. It was contended that the fact that he was allowed in those tests and interview indicated that his involvement in the criminal case was not sufficient for cancelling his candidature. Shri Sanjay Ghosh, the learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was acquitted in the criminal case, as a result, the stigma attached to him for the criminal case was obliterated. Thus, the Applicant cannot be denied appointment. He referred to the judgment of the Trial Court to say that the Applicant was acquitted not for hostile witnesses but the absence of any incriminating evidence brought on record against the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant, being free from the stigma, his case needs to be considered on merits, being fit in all other aspects should be appointed. Relying on the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Mohan Lal versus Union of India [1982 (1) SLR 573], he submits that acquittal of the Applicant is complete acquittal on merits.
5. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Respondents could not produce any adverse material except his involvement in the criminal case, to state that his character and antecedent was bad. Further, it is stated that the alleged offence is not serious which should be ignored to extend him the offer of appointment. In this regard, he placed his reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana ( 1996 (4) SCC 17). The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :-
Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary Courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are, therefore, necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily.
We note that this judgment is distinguishable and not applicable for the present case as the Applicant in the current OA was not acquitted in a small and petty offence and not in a summary trial.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that many candidates, having been involved in Criminal Cases, have been appointed in Delhi Police, and referred to the case of Shri Braham Prakash and Sh. Rajesh Kumar who were involved in the respective criminal cases but were appointed in their respective posts in Delhi Police. His contention is that the Applicant being similarly circumstanced should not be discriminated.
7. Further reference was made to the case of Matadeen Garg versus State of Rajasthan [SLP No.15234/1988 decided on 12.07.1991] to state that it was only the conviction that would impede the appointment of a selected candidate. The Applicant was not convicted but acquitted and hence his selection for appointment in Delhi Police should not have been cancelled. Further, he submits that the Respondents cannot sit on the judgment over the orders passed by the Trial Court which was not even challenged by the prosecution in the appellate Criminal Court. The Respondents are not free to contest the same but to accept the verdict of the Court. Relying on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Jaitu Versus Gulab Singh [2003-3-SCT-1011] it is argued that the acquittal means as if no case was ever registered against him.
8. The learned counsel for the Applicant strongly urged that judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar case (supra) on which reliance was placed by the Respondents, was not applicable to the Applicants case as that was a case of concealment whereas it was not so in the present case since the Applicant had voluntarily disclosed his involvement in the criminal case and acquittal at the time of his submitting Application and also subsequently in the Attestation Forms. The Respondents have not given due consideration to the Applicants submissions and passed the order in a routine manner which is bad in law. Relying on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Police and Others versus Sandeep Kumar [Civil Appeal No(s) 1430 of 2007 decided on 17.03.2011], Applicants counsel would submit that the Respondent concealed his involvement in a criminal case and after his selection to the post of Head Constable, the Appellants cancelled his candidature and the Respondents application before this Tribunal was dismissed and Honble High Court of Delhi allowed the Writ Petition. The Honble Supreme Court observed that It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter. For the reasons above given, this appeal has no force and it is dismissed. The Applicants counsel would, therefore, contend that the Applicant stood in a better footing as not only the charges were not serious but he was acquitted in the case.
9. Referring to Rule 6 of Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 it is contended that the ineligibility of persons to be appointed in Delhi Police does not refer to the involvement in a criminal case as one of the grounds of ineligibility.
10. The Respondents, on receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, have filed their reply affidavit on 14.9.2007 through Mrs. Renu George, learned Government counsel, opposing the grounds taken by the Applicant. Mrs. Renu George and Mr. B.N.P. Pathak, learned Counsel of the Respondents controverted the contentions advanced by the counsel for the Applicant. Respondents also produced copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 30.5.2007 which considered the Applicants suitability for the said post. Respondents also placed before us file No.XII (19) 2007 dealing with the case of the Applicant.
11. The Respondents averred that the Honble Supreme Court of India in Sushil Kumars case (supra) laid the law which guided the Respondents. Our attention was drawn to the judgment to submit that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though, he was physically found fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedents, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint him with such record as a Constable to the disciplined force of Delhi Police.
12. It is further contended that Respondents examined the Applicants case through a Screening Committee which took into account the Trial Court judgment wherein the Applicant was acquitted, the nature of Applicants involvement in the criminal case, gravity of offence, grounds of acquittal and keeping in mind the law set by Honble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumars case (supra) found the Applicant not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police. It is further submitted that all candidates are put to tests and interview and the successful candidates are selected provisionally. Only after their medical test, character and antecedents verification, the candidates so found fit are issued offer of appointment. But, as the Applicant was found not suitable by the Screening Committee, the competent authority after consideration of the Applicants representation on the Show Cause Notice passed the candidature cancellation order.
13. Referring to the discrimination ground raised by the Applicant, it was stated that each and every case was decided on the basis of respective facts and circumstances and the related judgment of Court/Tribunal in the criminal case. The Applicants case being dissimilar to those cases, the discrimination would not stand the test. In support of the contentions, the Respondents placed their reliance on the judgment in the matter of Daya Shankar Yadav Versus Union of India and Others [2010(12) SCALE-477]; Sanjeev Kumar Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others [OA No.2429/2006 decided on 21.04.2011], and Davender Kumar Yadav Versus Government of NCT of Delhi and Another [OA No.97/2010 decided on 31.5.2011]. It is, therefore, argued that the OA is a fit case to be dismissed
14. We have given our careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by both the parties. We have also carefully perused the minutes of Screening Committee Meeting, studied the judgments relied on by the parties and perused the records placed before us by the Respondents. For brevity in our order, we refer to the judgments which we consider relevant for determination of the issue raised in the OA.
15. The controversy in the present case is :- Whether the impugned order dated 25.6.2007, wherein the Applicants candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) was cancelled, despite his disclosure of the criminal case in the Application and Attestation forms and his acquittal in the criminal case, is legally sustainable or not?
16. Rule 9 of Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 prescribes the recruitment procedure of Constables, indicating physical, educational, age, and other standards for recruitment. Rule 9 (vi) envisages the Respondent No.1 to frame Standing Orders for the above recruitment purpose. Rule 6 indicates who are ineligible to be appointed in Delhi Police. However, it is noted that the relevant Act, Rules and Regulations governing the selection and appointment to the posts in Delhi Police do not prescribe any norm to be adopted or procedure to be followed on the issue before us. Recently a Standing Order (SO) has been issued in the form of guidelines (Standing Order No.398/2010 dated 23.11.2010) which seems to be the offshoot of the experience Delhi Police has gathered in the past in the selection process for various posts. The SO lays the policy for deciding cases of candidates provisionally selected in Delhi Police involved in Criminal cases (Facing trial or acquittal). Ten types of scenario have been analysed and procedure has been prescribed in case of each situation for the authorities concerned to follow. We are aware that the present case of the Applicant relates to the year 2006 when the said SO was not in existence. Though the SO 398/2010 may not be applicable for the present case, nonetheless, it is apt to recognize the relevant provisions of the SO dealing with the issues of the present OA:-
3) If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal cases(s), complaint case(s), preventive proceedings etc. and the case is pending investigation or pending trial, the candidature will be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the case. After the courts judgment, if the candidate is acquitted or discharged, the case will be referred to the Screening Committee of the PHQ comprising of Special Commissioner of Police/Administration, Joint Commissioner of Police, Headquarters and Joint Commissioner of Police/Vigilance to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police.
4) If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal case(s), complaint case(s) preventive proceedings etc. both in the application form as well as in the attestation form but was acquitted or discharged by the court, his/her case will be referred to the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police. xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx 6) Such candidates against whom chargesheet in any criminal case has been filed in the court and the charges fall in the category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though later acquitted or acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or the witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person(s), he/she will generally not be considered suitable for government service. However, all such cases will be judged by the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess their suitability for the government job. The details of criminal cases which involve moral turpitude may kindly be perused at Annexure A.
17. The Annexure-A to the said SO catalogues 12 categories of serious offences including moral turpitude. We find from the Criminal case in which the Applicant was acquitted, the charges inter alia included the charge u/s 380, 411 and 454 of IPC which are serious offences coming under Category No.9 dealing with offences against property. The present case comes under three situations indicated above. The features of the present case are : (a) the Applicant was involved in a criminal case; (b) he was acquitted in the said criminal case; (c) the Applicant disclosed the above criminal case and acquittal in his Application and Attestation Forms; (d) some of the charges against him were serious offence and (e) the Screening Committee considered the Applicants case and found him unsuitable for the post.
18. We may at this stage advert to one of the judgments relied on by the Applicant. In Sandeep Kumars case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court considered the case of Respondents concealment of his criminal case which was compromised resulting in his acquittal much before the Respondents application for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) on the basis of which his candidature was cancelled after service of Show Cause Notice. He filed an OA before this Tribunal which was dismissed and on appeal Honble High Court of Delhi held the cancellation of candidature as illegal. The appellant moved the Honble Supreme Court in the said Civil Appeal which was decided on 17.03.2011 by dismissing the same. We distinguish this judgment as it was qua the Respondent and would not be fully applicable in the present OA. In the present case, the Respondents having considered all the grounds of the Applicant including the plea of discrimination and have come to the conclusion that the Applicant was not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police and passed a detailed order.
19. Respondents have taken the stand that their case gets support from the ratio laid by Honbel Apex Court in Sushil Kumars case (supra) whereas the Applicant submitted that the judgment is not applicable as the Respondent in the said case did not disclose, rather concealed his involvement in the criminal case in the Application and Attestation Forms whereas in the present OA, the Applicant has given information in the forms and was acquitted. We may dwell on the above diametrically opposite stands of the parties on the judgment in Sushil Kumar case (supra). While allowing the appeal, the Honble Apex Court in the said case has held that the discharge on acquittal of a person under criminal offence has nothing to do with denial of appointment to him on the ground of undesirability based upon the antecedents of candidates. That was not a case of suppression of material information and making false statement in the application/attestation form but was a case where the appointment was denied to the respondent on account of his character and antecedents record where he was involved in a criminal case but acquitted by the Trial Court. That was a case where the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, he filed OA in the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the Character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the directions for reconsideration of the case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.
20. It is trite law that the appointing authority or the employer has the right to consider the desirability and suitability of the candidature of an applicant in public service/ employment. Verification of the character and antecedents of the applicant is one of the important criteria in the selection process to test whether the applicant is suitable for employment in the Public Service, more specifically for the post. This is in addition to the consideration of an applicants qualifications and experience and even after his provisional selection. Even if the Applicant is found to be physically fit, passed the written test, in possession of the requisite qualification and experience and has been provisionally successful, yet he may be denied appointment if verification of his character and antecedents provides such information which does not convince the employer/appointing authority to offer the employee, the ultimate outcome will warrant cancellation of his candidature.
21. On the other hand, the involvement in a criminal case, per se, is not a disqualification for appointment/public employment. Had it been so, it would have been sufficient to state in the Advertisement/Application form that the person involved in any criminal case (even if acquitted) is not eligible for appointment and the person so involved would not be allowed to compete in the selection/recruitment process. What is required to be seen in such cases is not the mere involvement in the criminal case but actually the conduct, character and antecedents as exhibited by ones alleged action based on which an objective view has been taken as to the desirability and suitability for inducting him into service. For this purpose, the candidates are required to disclose on their own their involvement in any criminal case in the past so as to facilitate the verification of their character and antecedents by the prospective employer. The act of concealing the requisite information in this regard adversely reflects upon the character and antecedents of the person concerned and this by itself is taken as a ground sufficient to cancel the candidature of delinquent candidate even if he is otherwise qualified for appointment to the post in question. The present case is not a case of concealment of criminal case in the Application and Attestation Forms but the case of involvement in a criminal case where the Applicant has been acquitted. The acquittal, of course, in the present case, has taken place as the material witnesses have turned hostile and the Applicant has compromised with the complainant.
22. Between these two extremes, there are large number of cases with different dimensions. On the one hand, verification of the character and antecedents of the candidate for appointment is not an empty formality for he cannot claim that he be appointed to the post on the basis of his qualification and performance in the selection process notwithstanding the outcome of the verification process of his character and antecedents. On the other hand, a persons candidature need not be thrown out solely on account of his involvement in a criminal case if he is otherwise found fit for such appointment as he is further required to pass the suitability test with reference to his character and antecedents in the past the outcome of which should be such as not to render him undesirable for induction in public employment. The appointing authority is required to examine this aspect in a pragmatic and objective manner so as to take a decision in the matter based on the relevant facts and circumstances of a given case. A candidate needs to be given a fair consideration. The decision of the appointing authority in such a case should not be arbitrary.
23. With the backdrop of the above, we refer to the facts of the parent OA. The impugned order, minutes of the Screening Committee and the Trial Court order will be relevant.
24. At this stage, we may refer to the Respondents letter dated 25.6.2007 which is the subject of adjudication in the present OA. The said letter reads as follows :-
OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE : 4TH BN. DAP: DELHI 110009.
No.XII/658/2007/19251/R.Cell(R-IV)/4th Bn. DAP Dated Delhi, the 25/6/07 To Shri Pradeep Kumar (Roll No.401933), S/o Sh. Ramesh Chander, Village Samas Pur Khalsa, Post Ujwa, New Delhi-110073.
Subject :- Recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Polie-2006 (Cancellation of candidates).
Memo You, candidate Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Chander, Village Samas Pur Khalsa, Post Ujwa, New Delhi-110073 had applied to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2006 against Roll No. 401933 and selected provisionally, subject to medical fitness, verification of character & antecedents and final checking of documents etc. On receipt of your character & antecedents report from the authority concerned it revealed that you were involved a Crl. Case FIR No.63/98 U/S 454/323/380/411/34 IPC, PS Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi. Later on , the above-said Crl. Case was decided by the Honble Court of Sh. Surender Singh Rathi, M.M. New Delhi vide its order dated 18.01.2001 and you were acquitted of charge of the case.
On scrutiny of Application Form and Attestation Form filled up by you on 25.03.2006 & 04.12.2006 respectively, it revealed that you have disclosed your involvement in the above said criminal case in the relevant columns of both the forms. Accordingly, your case was examined and you were issued a show cause notice vide this office memo No.XII/658/2007/18958/R.Cell(R-IV)/4th Bn. DAP, dated 14.6.2007 as to why our candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned therein. In response to Show Cause Notice you have submitted your reply on 20.6.2007, which has been considered in detail along with relevant record available on file. The same has not been found convincing because of the reasons that you were involved in case u/s 323/454/380/411/34 IPC and acquitted of the charge by the Honble Court as the prosecution failed to identify the culprit due to their hostile settlement. As such, your acquittal in the above-said criminal case can not said to be honorable acquittal. As such, you have found not suitable for the post of Const. (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and your candidature for the post of Const. (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE:
4TH BN. DAP: DELHI
25. The above order was passed on the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee. The minutes of the said Committee meeting held on 30.05.2007 is reproduced below :-
The Committee met on 30.05.2007 at 10:30 A.M. in the Chamber of Joint Commissioner of Police/Headquarters and examined the case in respect of candidate Pradeep Kumar [Roll No.401933] in detail keeping in view the nature of their involvement, gravity of offence, the judgment of the Court and also the grounds of acquittal.
Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.1996 in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5340 of 1996 DAD Vs. Sushil Kumar). The Committee recommends the following action :-
Name of the Candidate Brief of the case Remarks Pradeep Kumar He was charged under section 323/454/380 /411/34 IPC in case FIR No.63/1998 at PS Jafarpur Kalan, Delhi and later on acquitted of charge vide judgment dated 18.01.2001 by the Honble Court. The perusal of the judgment dated 18.01.2001 reveals that candidate Pradeep Kumar [Roll No.401933] was acquitted of the charge by the Honble Court as the prosecution failed to identify the culprit due to their hostile statement. Since the acquittal in the case is not honourable and his involvement in case u/s 323/454/380/ 411/34 IPC shows criminal intention of theft on his part which makes him unfit for Police force. Hence, not recommended.
26. In the Criminal Case (119/2) against the Applicant and another in the FIR No.63/1998 under Section 454/323/380/411/34 of IPC in Jafar Pur Kalan Police Station, the complaint was filed by Shri Sajan Antony against the accused. The allegation was that on 11.6.1998 at about 12.15 p.m., the accused committed lurking house stresspass by entering into the Complainants building, voluntarily caused simple hurt to him by broken bottle and committed theft of a purse containing `50/- and D/L No.12153. The accused including Applicant pleaded not guilty of the charge. Prosecution examined only 2 witnesses. However, during the course of the trial, the complainant compounded the offence u/s 323/411 IPC with the accused. Later both witnesses did not support prosecution case. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi passed the order dated 18.01.2001 by acquitting the accused. The following order was passed.
4. I have arguments of the ld. APP for the state and the ld. Counsel for accused and have perused the entire record carefully.
5. Initially both the accused were charged for commission of offence u/s 454/323/381/411 r/w Sect. 34 IPC. PW1 HC Ramesh was Duty officer and he has proved the copy of FIR ex. PW1/A. However, during the course of trial, vide separate statement on 18.1.2001, complainant compounded with offence u/s 323/411 IPC. Even in his statement recorded as PW2, he stated that he do not recollect the day, date and time of the incident and has even fail top identify as the accused as culprit of this case. In view of this hostile statement, the further evidence of the prosecution has closed, as it could not have served any purpose. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused are acquitted. Their bail bonds cancelled and their sureties stand discharged. File be consigned to the record room. Ofcourse, the above order was taken into consideration by the Screening Committee while recommending that Applicant was not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) and the Respondents took the decision by not offering him job.
27. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we come to the considered conclusion that there is no force in the Applicants contention that having been provisionally selected on the basis of his qualification and performance in the selection process, he is entitled for appointment notwithstanding his involvement in the criminal case which he has voluntarily disclosed in the application at the time of submitting his application and attestation forms. The conduct, character and antecedents of the Applicant has squarely gone against him.
28. The Applicants ground of his discrimination has been replied by the Respondents. It is noted that facts and circumstances of each case is different from the other. There is no wholesale and comprehensive similarity between those cases and the Applicants case. Just because the Sections of IPC under which some of those cases were registered are same/similar to those of the Applicant and just because some of them were acquitted as the Applicant was acquitted, similarity would be illogical and on this plea, discrimination claim, in our considered view, would be irrational.
29. We have taken note of various cases relied on by the Applicant in the OA and his counsel during the final hearing. We note that each and every case has its peculiar facts and circumstances and the acquittal in each case also varies, same are honourable and clean acquittals. In the present OA, the Applicant was involved in one criminal case and was acquitted partly due to the compromise with the complainant and partly due to both the witnesses including the complainant turning hostile. The Respondents have termed the said acquittal as not clean and honourable. We are in agreement with the conclusion arrived by the Respondents. In this connection, it is apt for us to observe that there are large number of young and hardworking persons with impeccable character and conduct who may be waiting/looking forward for the jobs in Delhi Police. The Respondents, at the same time, would be looking forward to the persons with impeccable conduct and antecedents and would not like to burden Delhi Police a disciplined force with persons having stigma or brush with criminal case in their past. The Respondents chose to cancel the candidature of the Applicant whose past conduct and antecedent were found to be unsuitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police. We have considered the impugned order dated 25.06.2007 and noticed that the same is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Thus, we come to considered conclusion that the impugned order dated 25.06.2007 is legally sustainable.
30. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of our above discussions, analysis and observations, we find that the impugned order dated 25.06.2007 cannot be viewed as arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, nor the same can be viewed as non-application of mind. We are of the considered opinion that the Applicant has not been able to establish his case and the present OA is not a fit case calling for our interference.
31. Resultantly, the OA being devoid of merits is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /rk/