Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ass Mohd Khan vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 April, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2482/2008
New Delhi this the Ist day of April, 2009.
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice-Chairman(J)
Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A)
ASS MOHD Khan
(ROLL NO. 905169)
S/o Shri Jhadmal Khan,
R/o Village & Post Pinan,
Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar,
Rajasthan-301413. . Applicant
(through Sh. Shyam Babu, Advocate)
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
through its Chief Secretary,
Players Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police
(Recruitment), Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Mrs. Sumedha Sharma, proxy for Mrs. P.K. Gupta, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A) The applicant is aggrieved that by order dated 13.10.2008 he was found not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.), Male in Delhi Police and his candidature was cancelled.
2. According to the applicant he was falsely implicated in FIR No. 556/2006 U/s 392 IPC, PS Kotwali, Alwar (Raj.) but acquitted by judgment of the Learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar (copy at Annexure-B) as no evidence was found against him.
3. It is submitted that he had filled up application form for the post of Constable on 21.05.2007 and the Attestation Form on 02.11.2007. In both of them he had disclosed the facts of his involvement in the criminal case. He was selected against Roll No. 905169, but the respondents issued to him a show cause notice on 08.09.2008 informing him that his case had been examined in detail by a Committee keeping in view the nature of his involvement in the criminal case, gravity of the offence, the judgment of the Court, the grounds of acquittal and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court dated 04.10.1996 in CA No. 13231 of 1996, DAD Vs. Sushil Kumar and found that his acquittal cannot be said to be an honourable acquittal. Therefore, he was asked to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Constable should not be cancelled.
4. In his reply to the show cause notice the applicant stated that the FIR did not mention his name or address or any identification and there was no material to connect him to the alleged offence. He had been granted bail on the very first appearance before the Magistrate and none of the witnesses produced by the Police clearly and categorically stated his involvement in the alleged offence. He was also not acquitted based upon any benefit of doubt and as such it was an honourable acquittal. While disputing that the case of DAD Vs. Sushil Kumar (supra) was relevant he relied upon the judgment of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shashi Kumar Vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (2005(1) SLR 659) to contend that the term honourable acquittal or full exoneration are unknown to criminal jurisprudence and the only words known to the Cr.PC are discharged or acquitted. As such he sought retention of his candidature. However, the respondents found the grounds taken by him to be not convincing and having reiterated their stand cancelled his candidature.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the judgment of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar reveals that the Court found the offence to be not proved in the absence of evidence and observed that the applicant deserved to be freed along with others who had been charged. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Honble High Court in the case of Shashi Kumar (supra) to emphasize that when a criminal charge fails in a Court of Law the accused should be deemed to have been acquitted of the blame. It would be futile to expect a finding of honourable acquittal or complete innocence since Criminal Courts are only concerned to find out whether the guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, asserted that the applicant is entitled to be appointed on the basis of recruitment of Constables in the year 2007 at his appropriate place with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances as has been prayed in the OA.
6. The respondents have opposed the applicants prayer by their written statement. It seems that when the applicant applied for the post of Constable he was put through the physical endurance & measurement test, written test, interview and declared provisionally selected subject to verification of character and antecedents as well as final check of documents and medical fitness etc. He was declared medically fit, but upon verification the involvement in criminal case FIR 556/2006 u/s 392 IPC was confirmed. The Screening Committee did not consider him fit. The respondents have reiterated reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in Sushil Kumar (supra) where despite provisional selection the authorities did not find it desirable to give appointment following verification of character and antecedents. The Court observed that although there may be acquittal of the criminal offence what was relevant was the conduct or character of the candidate for appointment and, therefore, the decision of the authorities was upheld.
7. We notice that the applicant had discussed the implications of the judgment in the case of Shashi Kumar (supra) in the reply to the show cause notice but it finds no consideration in the impugned order dated 08.09.2008 cancelling the candidature. It is not indicated as to what were the reasons owing to which such plea of the applicant did not make any impression with the respondents particularly in the context of the other aspects noticed & Apex Court decision in Sushil Kumar (supra) which was kept in view. A show cause notice could not be regarded as a mere formality and if the grounds taken in reply are ignored it would not be a fair and reasonable consideration of the same. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2008 and remit the matter back to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(N.D. Dayal) (M. Ramachandran) Member(A) Vice-Chairman(J) /vv/