Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hon Ble Mr. G.George Paracken vs Commissioner Of Police on 5 August, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA-362/2011
New Delhi this the 5th day of August, 2011.
Honble Mr. G.George Paracken, Member(J)
Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member(A)
Gulab Singh,
S/o Shri Darshan Lal
R/o Vill. & P.O. Khaira,
Najafgarh, Delhi. Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Ranbir Yadav)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
MSO Building Delhi Headquarter
IP Estate, New Delhi-110002.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, Delhi
MSO Building Delhi Headquarter
IP Estate, New Delhi-110002. Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand)
ORDER
Shri G.George Paracken:
The Applicants contention in this OA is that in spite of the fact that very fairly and honestly he had disclosed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent his acquittal both in the Application Form and the Attestation Form, the Respondents have cancelled his candidature citing the very same reason of his involvement in the criminal case.
2. Brief facts of the case: Pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.2.2009 to fill up 676 vacancies for the posts of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police, the Applicant had applied for the same in the prescribed form bearing No.477 on 18.3.2009. Against the relevant column in the Application Form, he had clearly indicated that he was involved in the criminal case under Section 307/341/201/34 IPC vide FIR No.12/2000 dated 23.1.2000 and acquitted by the trial court vide its judgment dated 28.03.2001. He was provisionally selected subject to the verification of character and antecedent, medical fitness etc. Thereafter, he filled up Attestation Form disclosing the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case as was in the case of the Application Form. However, the DCP, Special Branch, Delhi has also reported about the aforesaid fact. The Applicant has produced a copy of the judgment of the Session Judge in the aforesaid criminal case dated 28.3.2001 State Vs. Daya Nand Yadav & Anr. According to the said judgment, the prosecution first of all examined the injured Rajesh as PW1 who testified on 23.01.2000 that when he was parking his scooter, somebody attacked him from behind. Thereafter, he became unconscious and he did not know what had happened with him. The said witness was declared hostile. On cross examination by Ld. APP, the witness went on denying all the suggestions put to him. Likewise, the alleged eye witnesses, namely, PW2 Jagat Singh, PW3 Rajender, PW4 Rakesh and PW5 Dharampal Yadav (father of the victim) have also turned hostile and even the star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. the victim and other eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Thereafter, the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that it was futile to record the testimonies of the remaining witnesses and held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge framed against the accused. Accordingly, giving benefit of doubt, they were acquitted.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri Ranbir Yadav, relying on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar (JT 2011 (3) SC 484), has submitted that the indiscretions of the Applicant as a young person should have been condoned by the respondents particularly in view of the fact that he had honestly and fairly disclosed his involvement in the criminal case both in the Application Form and the Attestation Form. He has submitted that in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), even when the respondent therein did not disclose his involvement in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC, the Apex Court held that the indiscretions of the young people should be condoned and the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
4. The respondents in their reply have submitted that the applicants case was examined in detail by the Screening Committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police, to assess his suitability for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police, keeping in view the nature of his involvement in the criminal case, gravity of offence, the judgment of the court, the grounds of acquittal and the judgment of the Supreme Court in such cases. According to them, the charge against him was under Section 307/341/201/34 IPC. The complaint was that one Shri Rajesh was running a grocery shop and he was a student of 10th standard in an open school. He had lent some stuff and cash of Rs.2000/- to the applicant. One day he asked for the money but he was refused. On 23.01.2000 while he was going to deposit fee in the open school, applicant and Daya Nand came on a scooter and stopped him. They attacked him with a knife and then fled away on the scooter. His friend Rakesh took him to the hospital. They have also considered that he and his companion have the common intention of attempt to commit culpable homicide amounting to murder by inflicting injuries with knife to the complainant Shri Rajesh. He got his acquittal only because the complainant and eye witness have turned hostile. According to the respondents, the applicants conduct of indulging in crime without fear of the law was not considered appropriate to be appointed him in a disciplined force like the Delhi Police.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents Shri Amit Anand, relied on the orders of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA 1642/2009 Mahesh Dahiya Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. decided on 21.04.2010 and O.A 4301/2010 Surender Chahar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. decided on 24.05.2011. Both the cases have been dismissed based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar (1996 (11) SCC 605) according to which what is important is not the outcome in the criminal case but the conduct and character of the candidate.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As rightly assessesed by the respondents, the applicant, who was having a criminal tendency, was not found suitable to be appointed in the Delhi Police which is a disciplined force. Just because the candidate has disclosed his involvement in the criminal case and later his acquittal, in the application as well as attestation form, it is not a good and sufficient ground for his selection. The suitability of a candidate depends upon his actual conduct, character and antecedent. The Screening Committee is a body which has been constituted by the Commissioner of Police to assess the suitability of such candidates. It has considered the fact of the involvement of the applicant in the criminal case, the trial and the reason for his acquittal, etc and ultimately came to the conclusion that he is not a person who can be appointed in a disciplined force like the Delhi Police. We, therefore, do not find any fault with the decision of the Screening Committee as approved by the Commissioner of Police to cancel his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Polcie.
7. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Veena Chhotray ) ( G. George Paracken ) Member (A) Member (J) SRD