Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Prashant Kumar vs G N C T Of Delhi on 22 July, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.446/2013 On Tuesday, this the 22nd day of July 2014 Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Prashant Kumar (Roll No.711912) S/o Mr. Pradeep Kumar r/o Village & Post Kakripur District Baghpat Uttar Pradesh 250623 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Jairaj Mudgal) Versus 1. G N C T of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, Players Building IP Estate, Near ITO New Delhi-2 2. Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters IP Estate, New Delhi-2 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police Recruitment, New Police Line Delhi-9 ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Rashmi Chopra) O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
The applicant participated in the selection set in motion vide Advertisement published in leading Newspapers dated 23.10.2011 and Employment News dated 29.10.2011 to fill up 2622 vacancies of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police. He was declared provisionally selected against Roll No.711912 subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents, etc. On receipt of his character antecedents from DM, Baghpat (UP), it could be revealed that the applicant was involved in criminal case registered vide FIR No.1042/2011 dated 14.12.2011 under Sections 294/354 IPC, PS Baraut, District Baghpat (UP). In the said criminal case, the applicant was found acquitted. In terms of the Standing Order No.398/2010 dated 23.11.2010, the Screening Committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi examined the case of the applicant and did not recommend his name for appointment on the ground of his involvement in the aforementioned criminal case. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment Cell, Delhi issued order No. XII/427/2012/22149/ Rectt. Cell (R-IV)/NPL dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure A-1) canceling the candidature of the applicant. In the circumstances, the applicant filed the present Original Application assailing the aforementioned order of canceling his candidature and sought issuance of direction to appoint him as Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police.
2. The salient grounds raised in the Original Application, to buttress the prayers, are:
The impugned order is non-speaking.
The respondents failed to appreciate that the applicant had been acquitted from the criminal case registered against him.
The impugned order is in violation of Section 12 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
The impugned order is in violation of Rules 9 and 25 of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980.
The impugned order of the respondents smacks arbitrariness, as no ground for cancellation of the candidature has been cited.
The respondent-authority has given appointment to persons in similar cases and failed to consider the applicant for appointment to the post in question.
The impugned order is bad in law and The action of the respondents is in disregard to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450 wherein it was viewed that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
3. On the other hand, Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the trial court acquitted the applicant because the victim as well as other witnesses turned hostile. According to her, the recommendations of the Screening Committee can be interfered with by the Court only if the same are mala fide or based on extraneous material.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. In sum and substance, the controversy involved in the present case is whether even after his acquitted from the criminal charges by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, the applicant could be denied appointment as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. It is not in dispute that even after the acquittal of a candidate by the competent court, the Screening Committee need to assess whether he is fit to be appointed in Delhi Police or not. In the present case, apparently, the PW-3 did not support the charges and turned hostile, like-wise PW-4 also, though maintained that on 14.12.2011 when she came to Jaat Degree College, Baraut and was traveling in bus at about 2.00 PM along with other students, some boys used obscene words and caught hold of her hand, but she refused to approve that, the applicant herein was involved in the incident. Apparently, when the victim did not support the charges against the applicant, she also turned hostile. The facts of the case, as recorded in the order of trial court, are that on 14.12.2011 when the victim boarded in the bus Bawli Chungi Baraut at 2.00 p.m. some boys used obscene words and pulled her by hand and when she raised alarm, Mohd. Shahid (PW-2) and Arif (PW-3) came there and started beating the applicant and took him to Police Station where the criminal case was registered against him. When such was the story of the prosecution and Mohd. Shahid and Arif did not support the same, it cannot be viewed that they did not turn hostile. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Screening Committee cannot be questioned. For easy reference, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Sl. No. Name & Roll No. of the Candidate Brief of the case Remarks 6 Prashant Kumar, No.711912 Case FIR No.1052/2011 u/s 294/354 IPC PS Baraut Distt. Baghpat (UP) was registered on the complaint of Sh. Javed S/o Sh. Kallu r/o Gurana road, Baraut Distt. Baghpat (UP) who reported that his cousin Sabnam was a student of MSC-Ist year studying at Jat Degree College, Baraut. At about 2 P.M. she sat in the bus from, Bawli Chungi Baraut alongwith other students. One Prashant (candidat) S/o Pradeep Jat R/o Village Kakri Pur P. S Ramala used abusive language against her and caught hold of her hand and pulled towards him. When she raised alarm, he (complainant) apprehended Prashant (candidate) with the help of his friends Shahid, Sakil and Arif. The accused Prashant (candidate) was brought to the Police Station and the above said case was registered against him.
During trial of the case main eye witness (victim) turned hostile. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused person (candidate) vide judgment dated 31.07.2012. The candidate was involved in a case of eve-teasing in a bus with a student of M.Sc in broad day light at full public view. He was acquitted by the Ld. trial court as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the victim turned hostile and could not identify the accused during trial. The complainant, i.e. cousin of the victim has fully supported the prosecution.
The act of the candidate involving in a case of moral turpitude makes him unfit for the police force. Hence, not recommended.
6. Learned counsel for applicant himself produced the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & another v. Mehar Singh with Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & another v. Shani Kumar, (2013) 7 SCC 685 wherein their Lordships categorically viewed that where a person against whom a criminal case was registered and was later acquitted or discharged should not be appointed to a post in the police force and in such matters, what is relevant is the nature of the offence, the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt because the witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future. This decision can only be looked into by the Screening Committee created for that purpose by the Delhi Police and if the Screening Committees decision is not mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations, then it cannot be questioned. In the said case, the Apex Court further viewed that police force is a disciplined force and it shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category, even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case. The acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. For easy reference, paragraphs 35 to 38 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:-
35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.
36. The Screening Committees proceedings have been assailed as being arbitrary, unguided and unfettered. But, in the present cases, we see no evidence of this. However, certain instances have been pointed out where allegedly persons involved in serious offences have been recommended for appointment by the Screening Committee. It is well settled that to such cases the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not attracted. This doctrine does not envisage negative equality (Fuljit Kaur). It is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud because it embodies a positive concept. If the Screening Committee which is constituted to carry out the object of the comprehensive policy to ensure that people with doubtful background do not enter the police force, deviates from the policy, makes exception and allows entry of undesirable persons, it is undoubtedly guilty of committing an act of grave disservice to the police force but we cannot allow that illegality to be perpetuated by allowing the respondents to rely on such cases. It is for the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to examine whether the Screening Committee has compromised the interest of the police force in any case and to take remedial action if he finds that it has done so. Public interest demands an in-depth examination of this allegation at the highest level. Perhaps, such deviations from the policy are responsible for the spurt in police excesses. We expect the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to look into the matter and if there is substance in the allegations to take necessary steps forthwith so that policy incorporated in the Standing Order is strictly implemented.
37. Our attention is drawn to certain orders of this Court where, according to the respondents, special leave petitions filed by the State, arising out of similar fact situations, have been dismissed. It is not necessary for us to state that in limine dismissal of special leave petition does not mean that this Court has affirmed the judgment or the action impugned therein. The order rejecting the special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. This submission is, therefore, rejected.
38. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the view that the opinion formed by the Screening Committee in both these cases which is endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment), Delhi, that both the respondents are not suitable for being appointed in the Delhi Police Force does not merit any interference. It is legally sustainable. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the order of cancellation of the respondents candidature. In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The orders of the Delhi High Court impugned in both the appeals are set aside. The cancellation of candidature of the respondents - Mehar Singh and Shani Kumar is upheld.
7. In the present case, as can be seen from the above, the applicant has not raised any plea that the recommendations of Screening Committee are extraneous or vitiated by mala fide. None of the grounds raised in the Original Application are sufficient to interfere with the view of the Screening Committee.
8. Nevertheless, we find that in paragraph 5 (F) of the Original Application the applicant has raised a vague plea that the respondent authority has given appointment to persons in the similar cases and failed to consider the applicant for appointment for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police. When the applicant has not given particular of any such case, the respondents have also not specifically rebutted the said ground, thus taking a holistic view in the matter while declining the reliefs prayed in the Original Application, we direct the respondents to examine whether any other candidate involved in a criminal case, like the applicant herein, has been given appointment in Delhi Police on the basis of the selection in which the applicant participated. Having conducted such examination, the respondents would communicate their decision to the applicant.
9. The Original Application stands disposed of. No costs.
( A.K. Bhardwaj ) ( Sudhir Kumar ) Member (J) Member (A) 22nd July 2014 /sunil/