Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Samraj Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 December, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.153/2009 New Delhi, this the 8th day of December, 2009 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Samraj Singh S/o Sh. Giriraj Singh R/o Village-Maman Khurd, P.O. Dhamrovali Distt. Bulandsahar, U.P. 203001. Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri Ajesh Luthra) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police PHQ, M.S.O. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters) Police Headquarters, PHQ, M. S. O. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate : Shri R. N. Singh) : O R D E R : Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
By this OA, the Applicant has assailed (a) the Show Cause Notice dated 1.9.2009 (Annexure-A/1) proposing cancellation of his candidature to the post of Constable (Driver); and (b) the order dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure-A/2) confirming the said Show Cause Notice and cancelling his candidature; and has come before this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the the prayers (i) to quash and set aside the said Show Cause Notice and the order and (ii) to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant further for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) and offer him the appointment with consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case which are not in dispute reveal that the Respondent invited application from the suitable candidates through newspaper advertisement dated 22.9.2006 for the recruitment of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police under Rule 17-A (XX) of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The Applicant submitted his Application Form (No.1236) on 09.10.2006. He, with Roll No.200528, was declared provisionally selected subject to satisfactory verification report of his character and antecedents. He filed the Attestation Form on 22.11.2007. His character and antecedents were got verified through District Magistrate, Buland Shahar (UP). As per verification report dated 31.12.2007, the Applicant was found involved in 2 criminal cases viz. (i) FIR No.684/99, dated 28.10.1999, U/S 307/506 IPC in PS Kotwali Nagar, Buland Shahar (U.P.) and (ii) FIR No.465 dated 06.10.2003, U/S 323/341/506/34 IPC in PS. Darya Ganj, Delhi. Briefly, it is noted that in one case he was involved for committing the offence of attacking on the complainant with knife and Katta (country made revolver) and in other case he has manhandled the complainant. The said cases were decided on 27.03.2002 and 23.12.2007 respectively and the Applicant was acquitted of the charges. The Respondents on scrutiny of the Application and Attestation Forms found that the Applicant had disclosed about his involvement in the above mentioned cases. It is the case of the Applicant that in case of the FIR No.684/99 he has been acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 27.03.2002 and in FIR No.465/2003, the matter has been settled amicably between the parties and he feels that the acquittal in both cases is honourable. But the Respondents came to a different conclusion. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (Respondent-1) constituted a Committee consisting of Joint Commissioner of Police/Headquarters as Chairman, Dy. Commissioner of Police/Vigilance and Legal Advisor to Commissioner of Police, Delhi as members to examine the cases of candidate who disclosed their involvement in the Application Form as well as Attestation Form. The Committee also examined the Applicants cases keeping in view various instructions issued by Police Headquarters on the subject and judgment dated 04.10.1996 passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India in a Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 [arising out of SLP(C) No.5340 of 1996] DAD Vs. Sushil Kumar [Delhi Administration Versus Sushil Kumar 1996 (11) SCC 605] and found the Applicant not suitable for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. A Show Cause Notice proposing the cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police was issued to the Applicant vide No.58877/Rectt.Cell (AC-II)/PHQ, dated 01.09.2008 to which the Applicant submitted his reply on 15.09.2008. The Appointing Authority granted personal hearing to the Applicant on 31.10.2008. The Applicant did not say anything more than what he had already stated in his reply to the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, considering the reply, the proposed Show Cause Notice was confirmed and candidature of the Applicant for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police was cancelled vide letter No.62110/Rectt. Cell/(AC-II)/PHQ, dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure-A/2). Being aggrieved, the Applicant has filed this OA.
3. Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel representing the Applicant took us through the pleadings and submitted various contentions. (i) The acquittal in both cases was clean and honourable. The acquittals were not based on the benefit of doubts. He placed his reliance on many judgments. He cited the order of this Tribunal in OA 2429/06 where it was held that acquittal, when prosecution may lead such evidence which may be wholly insufficient to connect an accused with the crime and yet acquittal is recorded on benefit of doubt, the acquittal would be clean and words like benefit of doubt would be superfluous. In R. K. Gupta vs. UOI & Ors. [2005 (3) AISLJ 390], the Court has held that where in a criminal trial, an accused is acquitted for want of evidence, it would be an honourable acquittal. Further, in Bhag Singh Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank [2006 (1) SCT 175] the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that where acquittal is for want of evidence to prove the criminal charge, mere mention of benefit of doubt by the criminal court is superfluous and baseless and such an acquittal is honourable. In the present case, the acquittal being clean and honourable, the Applicant deserves to be appointed by the Respondents. (ii) Shri Luthra referring to the acquittal in the case (FIR No.465) on the basis of compromise/settlement which was considered by the Respondents as if it was not an honourable acquittal, raised the point that they did not take into account the fact that the Applicant was wrongly implicated in the said case. Even the FIR was against unknown persons and he was not named in the FIR. Since the complainant understood the miseries of a wrongly implicated person, he helped the Applicant in getting the offence compounded. Compounding of offence was the only resort as the case would have gone for long protracted trial and the Applicant would have been acquitted even after a full fledged trial. To avoid delay in his appointment, the compounding was resorted to. (iii) Shri Luthra very comprehensively put forward the fact that the Lok Adalats have been constituted for disposal of cases in a summary way and through the process of arbitration and settlement between the parties expeditiously to ensure that the legal system promotes justice. Thus, his argument was that the order of Lok Adalat cannot be given a demeaning construction either to propose cancellation of candidature or cancel the candidature holding that the acquittal is not honourable on the ground that it was a settlement. (iv) The Appointing Authority has wrongly placed reliance on Sushil Kumar case (supra) as the same is not applicable to the present case. (v) Relying on the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in CWP No.6045/2005, Shri Luthra argues that the Respondent should have looked into the nature and gravity of the offence and manner of acquittal. He submitted that none of the final orders of criminal cases show anything adverse to the applicants suitability and hence it is argued that the Applicant should have been appointed. Shri Luthra, therefore, pleads that the Original Application has merits to be allowed.
4. On contra, Shri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the contentions put forward by Shri Ajesh Luthra. Shri Singh contended that the Respondents are competent to test/check the suitability of the Applicant. In a disciplined force like Delhi Police, character and antecedent of the persons appointed should be clean, but Shri Singh opines that Applicants acquittal in both the cases was based on compromises and not honourable, as in one case he was acquitted and the charges could not be proved in the absence of prosecution witness and in other case the matter has been settled amicably between the parties. He submitted that the case of the Applicant was squarely covered by the judgment dated 4.10.1996 passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Sushil Kumar case (supra), where the Honble Supreme Court of India held that 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. Hence Shri Singh contends that the Applicants candidature was rightly cancelled. Another point he raised relates to the fact that the Applicant was given opportunity to submit reply and was heard in person, which Shri Singh terms as the compliance of principles of natural justice. The Counsel for the Respondent also highlighted that there was perfect fairness in the action of the Respondent-1, as he constituted a committee consisting of Joint Commissioner of Police/Headquarters as Chairman, Dy. Commissioner of Police/Vigilance and Legal Advisor to Commissioner of Police, Delhi as members to examine the cases of candidates who disclosed their involvement in the Application Form as well as Attestation Form. Accordingly, the Committee also examined the Applicants case and found the Applicant not suitable for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. It is stated that the involvement of the Applicant in both cases shows premeditated mind to commit crime and a tendency to disrespect for law and as such he was unfit for service. Thus, Shri Singh submitted that the OA deserved to be dismissed on merits.
5. The whole case in this OA revolves around the 2 criminal cases filed against the Applicant. It is not the case of concealment of those FIR/criminal cases in the Application and Attestation Forms. The Applicant has disclosed both cases in his Forms. It is the case, as per the Respondents, that the nature of the complaints which have influenced the Competent Authority to declare the Applicant Unfit for appointment as Constable (Driver). We find that in one criminal case, having considered the evidence tendered by two prosecution witnesses, the Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 27.03.2002 held the accused persons including the Applicant not guilty and the order was passed as far back as on 27.03.2002. In the second case Judge of the Lok Adalat has taken into account the compromise arrived at between the complainant and the accused persons including the Applicant in order to maintain harmony amongst themselves and the Learned Judge of the Lok Adalat has acquitted the accused persons including the Applicant. In this background, it is appropriate for us to take the extracts of the relevant part of the judgments for proper appreciation and adjudication of the case.
(i) Judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (Learned Shri A. K. Rastogi in Session Trial No.1025/2000 passed on 27.03.2002).
I heard the arguments on the part of the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor (Criminal) and learned counsel for the accused and perused the case file.
P.W.1 Neeraj has stated that it is the incident of 28.10.99, he was sitting on his shop. It was 7 p.m., there was dark. Two boys came on the shop, due to dark, he did not identify them. Those boys asked for the packet of Cigaratte, he asked them for money against the packet, on which, one boy assaulted him with the knife, which hit him at his left hand and another fired with the pistol, which did not hit him. He does not know both those boys. Accused persons present in the Court did not come there. I know them before the incident, they are Samraj and Harveer. Ramotar himself wrote the report of this incident, which was written on dictation by his father and his signatures were got appended, which is Exhibit A-1. Prosecution has requested to declare this witness hostile and sought his cross-examination. During the cross-examination, this witness has stated that the compromise has taken place between them but it is not correct that the accused Harveer and Samraj caused him injuries with the knife.
P.W. 2 has stated that it is the incident of 28.10.99 at 7 p.m. He was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. He did not see anyone assaulting Neeraj with knife or making fire on him. When he came on the shop, the criminals had fired away from there. P.W.3-Shiv Kumar has also given the similar statement that on 28.10.99 at 7 p.m., he did not see anyone causing injuries to Neraj. He reached at the place of occurrence after the incident. The persons, who caused injuries, were not present there. He knows accused persons Harveer and Samraj. They did not cause any injuries to Neeraj. Prosecution has requested to declare these witnesses hostile and they were cross-examined. Nothing such has come in light during their cross-examination that in actual, they saw the incident and know the accused persons.
Accused persons, during their Statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, have denied any such incident.
On the basis of evidence produced on behalf of the Prosecution, no charge against the accused persons is found proved, therefore, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
ORDER Accused persons Harveer and Samraj are not found guilty for the Charge under Section 307, 506 Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted from the above mentioned charge. Accused persons are on bail, their Bail-bonds are dismissed and sureties are discharged.
(ii) Judgment of Learned Judge of Lok Adalat dated 23.12.2007 in FIR No.465 dated 16.10.2003.
It is jointly stated that the matter has been settled between the parties. Let statement be recorded.
Statement of complainant has been recorded separately in this regard. In view of facts disclosed by the complainant and submissions made by the parties, I am satisfied that the matter has been settled amicably between the parties. Offence u/s 341/323/34 IPC has been compounded. Accused are acquitted. File be consigned to Record Room.
(iii) Statement of Satvir son of Sh. Maman r/o Village Bhatgaon, P.S. Sonepat, Haryana complainant on S.A. in FIR No.465 dt. 16.10.2003.
I am complainant in this case and have settled the matter and have compromised the ofence with all the accused persons who are present in court today without any pressure or coercion to maintain harmony among us. I do not want to take any legal action against them further.
6. Having gone through the judgments passed in both the cases, we also went through the reply given by the Applicant to the Show Cause Notice issued to him dated 1.09.2008. It is also appropriate for us to take the extract of certain relevant paragraphs of the said reply which the Respondents should have considered before declaring the Applicant not suitable for the post of Constable (Driver). Those paragraphs are extracted below :-
8. That in this context, it is submitted that I was wrongly implicated in the said case. Even the FIR was against unknown person and I have been a victim of ill-luck to have been falsely implicated in the said case due to some misunderstanding. Since the complainant understood and woke up to the miseries of a wrongly implicated person, and rose to the occasion and helped us in getting the offence compounded. Compounding of offence was the only preferred resort as it was the only short-cut available under law to get rid off the long protracted trial otherwise, I being innocent would definitely had been acquitted even after a full fledged trial. The delay in conclusion which could not be afforded as I was expecting my selection and appointment in Delhi Police. To avoid delay in appointment, the compounding was resorted to.
9. That it is not out of place to mention here that Lok Adalats have been constituted for disposal of cases in a summary way and through the process of arbitration and settlement between the parties, expeditiously and with lessor costs. It is a conciliatory agency to make justice quicker and less expensive. Lok Adalats have been constituted to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice.
In this background, the order of Lok Adalat cannot be given a demeaning construction to propose cancellation of candidature holding that the acquittal is not honourable since it was a settlement. The very purposeo f holding Lok-Adalats is to promote justice and if the orders of Lok-Adalats are taken adverse while adjuding suitability for appointment, it will be demeaning to the entire system of Lok Adalat.
Even Traffic Unit of Delhi Police organizes Lok Adalats where the alleged traffic violation are settled. The alleged violator does not enter into any trial and at the same time gets himself rid from the challan by being benefited from the summary disposal of the alleged violation, though he may not be the real violator or even the alleged violation be false.
Therefore, to propose or to conclude that the proceedings in Lok-Adalat have any kind of reflection whatsoever, on the suitability to hold a post in Govt. is absolutely contrary to the Scheme, objectives and system of Lok-Adalat.
Thus, the conciliation arrived at in Lok Adalat does not stand in the way of applicants appointment.
7. The impugned order refers to the Honble Supreme Court judgment in Sushil Kumars case (supra). The facts and circumstances in that case reveals that there had been concealment of facts of his involvement in a criminal case and cancellation of his appointment was done on the basis of the concealment of his involvements in a case where offences were alleged to have been committed U/S 304 read with 324 and 34 of IPC; and the appointment was received by him on deceitful means and such criminal cases were detected by the Competent Authority while verifying the character and antecedents through the concerned authorities. In that background the Honble Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of candidature. The facts and circumstances of the case in the present OA is far different from one which the impugned order dated 1.09.2008 relied upon. Each case for appointment is different from the other. While considering the Applicants case, neither the Committee nor the Appointing Authority has paid adequate attention to the reply given by the Applicant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumars case (supra) is not to be relied upon by the Respondents in deciding the case of the Applicant.
8. Having gone through these facts and the reply furnished by the Applicant to the Respondents, we come to the considered conclusion that the Respondents have not properly analysed the case of the Applicant and have erred in canceling the candidature of the Applicant. We also find that the Applicant has very forcefully made out a case in his support.
9. In the result, we quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 1.09.2008 (Annexure-1) and the order of the Respondents dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure-2). We remit the matter of the Applicant to the Respondent-1 with direction to pass appropriate order for appointment of the Applicant to the post of Constable (Driver). This should be carried out within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He should be assigned position just above the person ranked below him in the Select List. He will be entitled to appropriate fixation of pay but not to any arrears, arising out of such exercises.
10. With the above directions, the OA is allowed. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (M. Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice Chairman (J)
/pj/