Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ex. Constable (Executive) Santosh ... vs Gnct Of Delhi on 5 February, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.1891 of 2009 New Delhi this the 5th day of February, 2010 Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Ex. Constable (Executive) Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Sarnam Singh, R/o Dwarika Puri, Agra Road, Etah, Behind Nalkup Colony, Distt. Etah (UP) .Applicant ( By Advocate Shri Saurabh Ahuja) VERSUS 1. GNCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Establishment, Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi 3. Principal, PTC, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi .... Respondents ( By Advocate Ms. Sumedha Sharma) O R D E R Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :
Shri Santosh Kumar, the Applicant in this OA served in the Indian Army for a period of 17 years. While he was in the Army, an FIR No.44A/2000 under Sections 325 and 506 of IPC was lodged against the Applicant on the complaint of his uncle. A cross FIR No.44/2000 under Sections 308/ 323/ 504/ 506 of IPC was lodged against the Applicants uncle by the father of the Applicant. The Applicant was not arrested in the case. He was acquitted by the Court of the Sessions Judge by judgement dated 6.09.2003. It was an honourable acquittal as the Court held that the prosecution could not prove the case against the Applicant. The Applicant, after his discharge from the Army, submitted an application for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in Ex-serviceman category in the year 2007. He was appointed as Constable (Executive) by order dated 24.05.2008. On 14.07.2008, the following show cause notice was given to the Applicant:
Rect. Const. Santosh Kumar No. 6714/PTC (Roll No. 802301) was provisionally selected as Const. (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in year 2007. The police verification report was sent to DM Etah (UP) vide DCP/4th Bn. DAP letter No. XII/2008/2001/R.Cell(R-I)/4th Bn. DAP dated 14.01.2008 received and it has been reported by SHO/Pillua Distt. Etah (UP) in the report that candidate Santosh Kumar s/o Sh. Sarnam Singh was involved in a criminal case FIR No. 44A/200 U/S 324/506 IPC. The case had been decided by the Honble Court of ACJM(Fast Track) -4/Etah U.P. acquitted him on 06.09.03. Rect. Constable Santosh Kumar No. 6714/PTC did not disclose the facts regarding his involvement in the said crl. case in the relevant column i.e. Application Form and Attestation Form filled by him on 10.06.07 & 14.11.07 respectively despite clear instructions given at the top of these form that giving any kind of false information or concealing any facts will be treated as disqualification. As such he has submitted a false under taking and get entry in Delhi Police as Const. (Exe.) Male by adopting deceitful means with malafide intention.
The above act on the part of Rect. Const. Santosh Kumar No.6714/PTC amounts to grave misconduct render him un-becoming a suitable police officer of a disciplined force.
Therefore, Rect. (Const.) Santosh Kumar No. 6714/PTC is hereby called upon to show cause as to why his service should not be terminated under Rule-5(i) of Central Civil Service (Tempy. Service) Rules-1965. The reply to the show cause not should reach to the undersigned within 15 days of the receipt of this notice, failing which it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in this defense and the matter will be decided expert, on merits.
2. The Applicant gave his reply to the show cause notice, which was not accepted and his service was terminated by order dated 11.09.2008. His representation against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by order dated 2.04.2009. The learned counsel for the Applicant has confined his argument to the action of the Applicant being a bonafide mistake. He would contend that the Applicant had served in a disciplined force for seventeen years and his record of service had been absolutely unblemished. He had joined the Indian Army as Sepoy in 1989 and served there till 31.08.2006. He would contend that the Applicant had informed his superior officers in the army in the year 2000 itself about the criminal case filed against him and later about his acquittal and yet no action was taken by the army against him. It is further contended that the case against the Applicant related to family dispute and the Applicant was honourably acquitted in the case. He has also stated that the Applicant was not arrested and he did not even attend the Court during trial proceedings. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel would contend, the Applicant was under the genuine belief that he did not have to mention the fact regarding the criminal case against him. Not mentioning this fact in the application form or the attestation form was totally unintentional. The learned counsel for the Applicant has relied on the order dated 18.09.2007 of this Tribunal in OA No.141/2007, Mr. Brahm Prakash Dahiya Vs. GNCT of Delhi and another. In the aforesaid OA, the facts were almost identical. Brahm Prakash Dahiya also served in the Indian Army for seventeen years and thereafter was selected for the post of Constable in Delhi Police in the year 2005. While filling the application form for recruitment to Delhi Police, he had mentioned `no against the column regarding arrest and pendency of criminal case against him. The case against the said Brahm Prakash Dahiya was also regarding some family dispute and had been filed under Sections 323, 325 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The only difference between the instant case and the case of Brahm Prakash Dahiya is that the latter mentioned the fact of criminal case against him in the attestation form, whereas in the instant case the Applicant did not mention it either in the application form or in the attestation form. The question as considered by the Tribunal was as follows:
2.The only question that needs to be determined is as to whether non-mentioning of the criminal case by the applicant in the application form was a deliberate concealment and, if not, whether respondents in that case could cancel the candidature of the applicant without considering the nature of offence, the time lag between the incident of the criminal case and the applicant seeking appointment of the post of Constable (Exe.).
3. After considering various facts, the Tribunal observed that the disciplinary authority rejected the reply of the Applicant to the show cause notice only by mentioning that the said Brahm Prakash Dahiya had not disclosed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case in the relevant column of the application form. The Tribunal observed further as follows in paragraphs 12 and 13:
12. Insofar as appeal of the applicant is concerned, the same was dismissed by simply mentioning that the same was considered at length but the request of the applicant could not be acceded to, and not a word with regard to the nature of the case, the way and manner it resulted into acquittal, the time lag between the incident of the criminal case and the filling up of the form was ever mentioned. Learned counsel for the respondents does not appear to be correct in contending that the applicant was not found fit because of his involvement in criminal case. We find that the candidature of the applicant was cancelled simply because, in view of the respondents, he had tried to seek appointment by adopting deceitful means. The fact that the applicant had served earlier also in a disciplined force for a long 17 years without any blemish was also not taken into consideration.
13. In view of the observations made above, this Original Application is partly allowed. Impugned orders dated 03.07.2006 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Disciplinary Authority) and dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure A-2), conveying rejection of applicants appeal, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police are quashed with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the matter of the applicant in the context of the nature of the case, the way and manner it resulted in acquittal, the time lag between the incident and filling up the form by the applicant, the employment of the applicant with CRPF for a period of 17 years, and all other related matters. There would have been no difficulty for us to give our finding on the aforesaid issue as well but we would not like to take the task upon us when primarily it is required to be gone into by the concerned authorities at first instance. Let the exercise ordained above be taken and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
4. In the instant case also the order of the Principal, Police Training College, by which the service of the Applicant has been terminated, is of a piece with the order passed in the case of Brahm Prakash Dahiya. The order in the representation also has not considered the facts of the case and a mechanical order has been passed.
5. The learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, would contend that it was not the nature of the crime or the circumstances in which the FIR was filed against the Applicant and the fact of his acquittal, which were to be considered by the appointing authority before terminating the service of the Applicant. She would contend that the Applicant is an educated person and the information, which was asked from him was absolutely unambiguous and it was regarding his involvement in a criminal case ever. The Applicant being an educated person could not miss this unambiguous requirement and prominent warning on the application form that in case of information being found wrong, the services of the employee would be terminated or he would be held ineligible for the post. She has also cited an order dated 11.12.2009 of this Tribunal in OA No.629/2009, Deepak Vs. GNCT of Delhi and another, in which also the applicant in the said OA had not mentioned the fact of his being involved in a criminal case because he had been acquitted in that case. The Tribunal held as follows in this case:
2. Respondents, at our instruction have produced the original form filed by applicant. Columns 12 and 15 are relevant and a candidate has to disclose full details of FIR, furnishing of bonds and the like. He had omitted to give any details.
3. The contention of the applicant is that proceedings had been initiated against him but it, ultimately ended in acquittal. These could not have been considered as coming under the purview of the proceedings that were asked to be supplied in the application. At the most there was only a bonafide omission.
4. Although, applicant submits that no FIR had been filed against him, proceedings which he had undergone, according to us, are required to be disclosed. If that be the case, we are of the view that the contentions raised by the applicant could not have been sufficient enough for his advantage. Application is closed. But we make it clear that this judgment or the proceedings referred to here would not preclude him from responding to fresh Notifications if made by Delhi Police. He will have to disclose the details appropriately at that point of time, however. No costs.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the counsel for both sides. In OA No.629/2009, Deepak Vs. GNCT of Delhi and another, cited by the learned counsel for the Respondent, the facts are not the same as in the instant OA or in Brahm Prakash Dahiya (supra). In the case of Deepak, it was pleaded that the fact of involvement in a criminal case was not mentioned because the said Deepak had been acquitted in the case. In the instant case, which is squarely covered by the order in Brahm Prakash Dahiya (supra), the plea of the Applicant is that not mentioning his involvement in a criminal case was unintentional and was a bonafide mistake. There are mitigating factors in the case, which we have discussed above and which were considered to be mitigating factors in Brahm Prakash Dahiya also.
7. Under these circumstances, we allow this OA partly by remitting the case to the Principal, Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi for reconsideration of the reply of the Applicant to the show cause notice after considering the nature of the case, the judgement of the Trial Court and the fact that the Applicant has served in the Indian Army for seventeen years and had a record of unblemished service. The third Respondent, i.e., the Principal, Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi would pass a cogent, reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order. There will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) (L.K. Joshi) Member (J) Vice Chairman (A) /dkm/