Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sandeep Mann vs Govt. Of Nct & Ors. Through on 25 February, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. 2122/2008 New Delhi this the 25th day of February, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Honble Mr. N. D. Dayal, Member (A) Sandeep Mann, S/o Satya Prakash, H.No. 621, Khera Khurd, Delhi-82. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus Govt. of NCT & Ors. through: 1. The Commissioner, Delhi Police, Police HQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 4th Btn, DAP, Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Ms. Rashmi Chopra) O R D E R
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J).
The applicant had responded to an advertisement for selection of Constables (Executive) in the Delhi Police. He had passed the preliminary examinations and his physical endurance test had been held on 26.07.2007. The applicant had been called for interview on 30.10.2007 and had been finally selected for the post of Constable. It so happened that on the very same date of P.T., an FIR had been lodged, for offences under the IPC and Arms Act wherein his name had also been included (A-4).
2. During November, 2007, he had been asked to fill up an attestation form and he had divulged such details at that time. It is his case that the FIR had been quashed by the High Court on 20.03.2008, as the alleged issue of minor altercation had been settled between the friends. However, on 11.08.2008, a show cause notice had been issued proposing to cancel his candidature for involvement in a criminal case. He had replied thereto but on 08.09.2008 by Annexure A-1. Later on, he has been informed that he was found unsuitable for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in the Delhi Police and his candidature had been cancelled.
3. With reference to Annexure A-1, Mr. Bhardwaj submits that in fact there has been a mechanical approach. It is alleged that on 24.05.2007 in the application form, he had mentioned No in the relevant column to a query whether any criminal case had been registered against him but as the incident had taken place long after the declaration given in the application form it could not have been considered as objectionable. However, in the attestation form, the details had been given. It was not a case of suppression at any point of time. Further, when the FIR itself had been quashed, there was no substance for forming an opinion that as the allegation was about an incident where a person was beaten and included a threat to kill by production of an object like a revolver, the conduct remained highly objectionable. The presumption was being collected from thin air. Any such allegations could not have led the Deputy Commissioner to come up with a decision that the applicant had tendency to involve in a criminal activity and hence it was not desirable to appoint him as Constable.
4. With reference to the counter reply filed, learned counsel for the respondents, had pointed out that it was a case where an issue had been compromised and, therefore, the recitals in the FIR could not have been overlooked. Counsel had also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar, wherein it had been held that a finding of an authority whether a person or not was desirable to be taken on the roll is subjective and it was not justiciable. Involvement in a crime naturally was to lead to a presumption that he had criminal tendency, and, therefore, the decision when arrived at bonafide could not have been upset.
5. Mr. Bhardwaj had brought to our attention an order passed by us in OA 553/2008 and especially points out that the extenuating circumstances, as highlighted there, for grant of reliefs, with all force, could be available here also. The applicant was hardly 20 years of age. He was undergoing studies in College, there might have been a petty quarrel and one person might have rushed to the police station with complaint and might have given names of persons, who might not have even involved in any incident. Later on, the complainant had retraced his steps and the FIR itself was quashed. It was inequitable that these circumstances should stand against claim for appointment. Entire career and life could not have been destroyed on the basis of allegations, which were not ever substantiated. The case has been dealt with, according to the counsel, too harshly when interference of this Tribunal is warranted.
6. On an anxious consideration of the facts highlighted, we feel that the impugned decision has been passed on an impulse and the matter should have been approached with, in a more humane and mature manner. The cancellation of the appointment, according to us, was not warranted and the solitary incident as arrayed against a youngster could not have been a pointer for a conclusion that he had traits in his blood for criminality.
7. Taking into account the totality of the situation, we quash the impugned orders. The applicant should be readmitted to duty forthwith. During the interregnum period, however, he will not be entitled to salary, but for all other purposes, the period is to be treated as continuous and uninterrupted. Follow up orders should be passed in any case within a period of one month from today. O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(N. D. Dayal) ( M. Ramachandran) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) SRD