Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikram Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 7 March, 2023
1
O.A. No. 2497/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2497/2016
Reserved on: 16.02.2023
Pronounced on: 07.03.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Vikram Singh
Roll No. 102501
S/o Sh. Ramphal
Aged about 23 Years
R/o VIII : Ramkali
PO : Shamllo Kalan,
Distt : Jind, Haryana
...Applicant
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. DCP (Recruitment Cell)
NPL, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Puneet Rathi for Ms. Rashmi Chopra)
2
O.A. No. 2497/2016
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
"A) To quash the impugned SCN dt. 17.6.2016 and Order dt.6.7.2016 and direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of Constable (Ex.) with all consequential benefits including Seniority/promotion and arrears of pay particularly when the applicant is not able to get job despite his best efforts.
B) To award costs in favor of the applicant and C) To pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
2. The applicant was selected as Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2013. He was initially of age about 20 years. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that he has disclosed involvement in Criminal offence in the attestation form as well as application form to a kalendra which culminated into FIR No. 196/2012 dated 14.11.2012 reported in PS/Uchana, Haryana, U/s 147/452/323/506/149 IPC. However, the applicant failed to disclose his involvement in yet another FIR No.765/2014 dated 22.09.2014 reported in PS/Jind City, Haryana, U/s 323/341/148/149/506 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that immediately after his selection and upon realizing his mistake of non-disclosing of the aforesaid details he on his own violation moved an appropriate 3 O.A. No. 2497/2016 representation disclosing his involvement vide his application/communication letter dated 03.03.2016 before the Competent Authority alongwith the decisions dated 13.02.2013 in respect of first FIR and dated 05.03.2015 in respect of second FIR regarding clear acquittal of the applicant in the aforementioned FIRs. Pursuant to which the applicant was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.2015 by the respondents. The same is reproduced herein under for ready reference:-
"Subject:- Recruitment for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police -2013. [Show Cause Notice] - regarding. Memo.
It is stated that you candidate Vikram Singh S/o Shri Ramphal had applied to the post of Constable-{Exe.) Male in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year-2013. You were put through the Physical Endurance & Measurement Test and written examination and declared provisionally selected against Roll No.102501; subject to satisfactory verification of character & antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. Scrutiny of Application Form &.Attestation Form revealed that you had disclosed the facts of your involvement in a Kalandra u/s. 7/51 in the relevant column of Attestation Form. However, on further scrutiny, it is also revealed that you had submitted an application to this office on 03.03.2016 mentioning therein that you were also involved in two criminal cases vide FIR No.(1) 196/2012 dated 14.11.2012 u/s. 147/452/323/506/149 IPC, PS/Uchana and (2) FIR No.765/2014 dated 22.09.2014 u/s. 323/341/148/149/506 IPC, PS/Jind in which later on you were acquitted by the Honble Court vide orders dated 13.02.2013 and 05.03.2015 respectively. The above facts shows that you have concealed the facts of your involvement in the above-said two criminal cases in the relevant column of application form & attestation form deliberately despite clear warning given at the top of the forms that furnishing of any false information or concealing any facts will be treated as disqualification. Thus, you have concealed the facts of your involvement in the above said criminal case in the relevant column of both the forms and tried to seek appointment in Delhi Police by adopting deceitful means through malafide intention.4 O.A. No. 2497/2016
As such, you candidate Vikram Singh S/o Shri Ramphal are, therefore, called upon to Show Cause as to why your candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police- 2013 should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned above. Your reply, if any, should reach this office within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defense and the case will be decided ex-parte on its merit."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has submitted a detailed reply to show cause notice through his counsel on 30.06.2016, relevant paragraph of the same are reproduced herein under for ready reference:-
"2. That in the application form my client had to reveal the involvement in criminal offence.
3. That in the application form, my client had mentioned that one criminal offence under section 107/51 cr.p.ce was lodged against him which my client was acquitted.
4. That in the bonafide belief my client thought that the case in which he has been acquitted need not to be mentioned in the application form.
xxxxxx
7. That in you notice you have already accepted that my client has himself revealed through the application on 03.03.2016 regarding the two FIR bearing no and bearing no bearing no 196/12, dated 14.11.2012, U/S 147/452/323/506/149 IPC, ps-Uchana and FIR bearing no 765/2014, dated 22.09.2014, V/S - 323/341/148/149/506 IPC, PS- JIND.
8. That my client has also submitted the copy of judgment in which my client has already been acquitted in both the FIR. xxxxxxx
10. That my client had failed to appreciate/understand the warning that the applicant has to mention/ reveal the entire involvement of criminal case in the application form.
11. That my client has not concealed the fact of involvement of criminal cases as my client himself submitted the application in your office on 03.03.2016 mentioning therein the description of two criminal cases.
12. That my client has not adopt any deceitful means through malafide intention for seeking appointment in Delhi Police."5 O.A. No. 2497/2016
Upon consideration of said reply, the respondents vide letter dated 06.07.2016, without even going through the reply passed following order:-
"The plea(s) put forth by you in the reply have been considered in detail but not found justifiable because of the reasons that in the Attestation Form, you did not mention about the facts of your involvements in the above-mentioned two criminal cases. Further, you were fully aware about the facts that involvements in criminal cases should be mentioned in the attestation form whether you were acquitted or convicted, thus you mentioned that "Ha, mere virudh 7/51 ka mukadma that jismay mai bari ho chukka hu" and concealed the facts deliberately despite clear warning given at the top of this form that furnishing of any false information or concealing any facts will be treated as disqualification. Since, ignorance of law is no excuse as such your candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police-2013 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect."
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant had voluntarily disclosed about the involvement in the criminal case. Therefore, his case is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Commissioner of Police v/s Dhaval Singh", reported in 1999 (1) SCC 246, due to the following facts in that case:-
A) Dhaval Singh filed up his Application form on 21.6.95 and Attestation Form on 27.6.95 but did not disclose about the pending criminal case in both the Forms.
B) The department came to know about the pendency of the criminal case against him from the Verification Report of Character and antecedents in Sep/Oct 95.6 O.A. No. 2497/2016
C) He sent a Letter dt.15.11.95 to the Delhi Police informing about pendency of criminal case and that the judgment in criminal case is expected on 24.11.95 D) His candidature was cancelled vide Order dt.20.11.995.
E) He was acquitted in the criminal case after 23.11.95.
F) He filed representation after acquittal for appointment that was rejected on 29.1.96.
G) He filed OA No.875/96 before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which was allowed vide Judgment dt.22.11.96 and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that non-mentioning of the pending criminal case in both Application Form and Attestation Form in June 1995 was only a mistake that was rectified by Dhaval Singh when he sent information on 15.11.95. Thus, the non-disclosure does not amount to concealment due to volunteer information given by him vide Letter dt.15.11 ,95.
H) The case of the applicant is on much-much better footing since he had already been acquitted from the criminal cases and had also disclosed voluntarily vide Application/Information Letter dt.3.3.2016 about the same before the department could come to know about the same on the basis of Verification Report of character and antecedents. Therefore, the same does not amount to concealment and the applicant is liable to be appointed. 7 O.A. No. 2497/2016 The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dhaval Singh (supra), are reproduced as under
for ready reference:-
"5. That there was an omission on the part of the respondent to give information against the relevant column in the Application Form about the pendency of the criminal case, is not in dispute. The respondent, however, voluntarily conveyed it, on 15-11-1995, to the appellant that he had inadvertently failed to mention in the appropriate column regarding the pendency of the criminal case against him and that his letter may be treated as "information". Despite receipt of this communication, the candidature of the respondent was cancelled. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police cancelling the candidature on 20-11-1995 shows that the information conveyed by the respondent on 15-11-1995 was not taken note of. It was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have considered that application and apply its mind to the stand of the respondent that he had made an in advertent mistake before passing the order. That, however, was not done. It is not as if information was given by the respondent regarding the in advertent mistake committed by him after he had been acquitted by the trial Court it was much before that. It is also obvious that the information was conveyed voluntarily. In vain, have we searched through the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the other record for any observation relating to the information conveyed by the respondent on 15-11-1995 and whether that application could not be treated as curing the defect which had occurred in the Form. We are not told as to how that communication was disposed of either. Did the competent authority ever have a look at it, before passing the order of cancellation of candidature? The cancellation of the candidature under the circumstances was without any proper application of mind and with out taking into consideration all relevant material. The tribunal, therefore, rightly set it aside. We uphold the order of the Tribunal, though for slightly different reasons, as mentioned above.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to a judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court on 4-10-1996 in C.A. No.13231 of 1996. On the first blush, that judgment seems to support the case of the appellants but there is a material difference between the two cases. Whereas in the instant case, the respondent had conveyed to the appellant that an inadvertent mistake had been committed in not giving the information against the relevant column in the Form much before the cancellation of his candidature, in Sushil Kumar's case, no such correction was made at any stage by the respondent. That judgment is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on facts."
8O.A. No. 2497/2016
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further relies on the decision rendered in OA No.1410/2007 titled Surinder Singh Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Anr. dated 11.09.2008, which was allowed, where the facts of the present case are at a better footing to that of Dhaval Singh case (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:-
"9. The conclusion of the second respondent appears to be that there was mala fides and employment of deceit. We are conscious that in spite of warning given to the candidates, the applicant had supplied wrong details, which practically amounted to suppression if left as such. But even before the process of verification started, he had given all the relevant details, and it could be possible to assume that the actual verification was made easier because of the above conduct of the applicant. It was a case, where the applicant had been acquitted and although it may not be possible for us to assume in what manner exactly the mind of the applicant was working at the point of time of filling up the application form, he could be exonerated of the ill effects of such a conduct, in view. of the circumstances that he had supplied all the relevant details and this is the position deriving from the decision in Dhaval Singh (cited supra). We have also to take notice of a circumstance that an acquitted person as such was not disabled from being selected as a Constable. Mr. Chauhan also refers to the recruitment rules, highlighting that a criminal proceeding never operated against consideration of the claims of an aspirant.
10. Apart from the legal niceties, we have to see that the impugned order is likely to block the career prospects of a young man who would have otherwise fitted well to the mainstream of life. In such situation, the Court has to deal with the issue, with certain amount of compassion. Taking notice of the totality of the circumstances, we think the respondents were not justified in coming to a conclusion that the candidature of the applicant was required to be cancelled for the reasons highlighted. It, at best could have been a debatable opinion. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to take note of the application of the applicant as valid for all purposes. There will be no order as to costs."
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the ground of relief in the present OA. Pursuant to the 9 O.A. No. 2497/2016 direction given on 20.01.2023, he has produced the original records, i.e., attestation form, the order of acquittal of the applicant in the two FIRs and all relevant relevant records records.
7. We have perused the records of the present case as produced by the learned counsel for the respon respondents and we notice that in the application form dated 16.02.20 16.02.2013, in column Nos.18-21, following has been recorded:-
recorded:
7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the recruitment process/examination pertains to 2013 and draws attention to the attestation form dated 18.08.2015, which has been produced in original, wherein he relies upon column No.11 No.11, which reads as under:-
under:10 O.A. No. 2497/2016
7.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that the representation dated 03.03.2016 alongwith a duly notarized undertaking/declaration dated 25.08.2015 inter alia disclosing regarding FIRs reported against the applicant. The relevant paragraphs of the notarized undertaking/declaration dated 25.08.2015 read as under:-
xxxxxx 7.3 Learned counsel for the respondents further contends that FIRs were registered much prior to the application form and were advertised in 2013, therefore, he ought to have disclosed complete details, non disclosure tantamounts to concealment of fact.
7.4 Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10499 of 2022 titled Ex-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein reliance has been placed on paragraph nos.8 and 9, which read as follows:-11 O.A. No. 2497/2016
"8. It may be noted that even after the guiding principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh by the three-judge Bench, divergent views were expressed by the various benches of this Court. Therefore, this Court in case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others., after taking into consideration the inconsistent views taken in the cases of Union of India & Ors. Vs Methu Meda; Union of India vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick; Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr.; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Anil Kanwariya;
Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others; etc., further laid down following principles: "89. The only reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by this Court as above over a period of time is that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) different courts have enunciated different principles.
90. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)]
b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.
c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to 12 O.A. No. 2497/2016 condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.
f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?
g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?"
9. Having regard to the guiding principles, laid down in case of Avtar Singh (supra) and in case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Single Bench of the High Court had committed an error in interfering with the order passed by the respondents- authorities. The respondents-authorities had after taking into consideration the decision in case of Avtar Singh terminated the services of the petitioner holding inter-alia that while the petitioner was appointed in CISF, a criminal case was pending against him at the time of his enrolment in the force, but he did not reveal the same and that there was deliberate suppression of facts which was an aggravating circumstance. It was also held that CISF being an armed force of Union of India, is deployed in sensitive sectors such as airports, ports, department of atomic energy, department of space, metro, power and steel, for internal security duty etc., and therefore, the force personnel are required to maintain discipline of the highest order; and that the involvement of the petitioner in such grave offences debarred him from the appointment. Such a well-reasoned and well considered decision of the respondent-authorities should not have been interfered by the Single Bench in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when there were no allegations of malafides or of non-observance of rules of natural justice or of breach of statutory rules were attributed against the respondent authorities."
7.5 He would further contend that the facts of the present case are quite distinct from Dhaval Singh (Supra) inasmuch as the time period as mentioned in the Dhaval Singh case was quite short, however, in the present case despite having knowledge of the FIRs at the time of advertisement, there was a wide time gap, the applicant ought to have disclosed the information. 13 O.A. No. 2497/2016 7.6 In support of his contention he further draws attention to paragraph no.10 of the reply dated 30.06.2016 of the applicant, the same has been highlighted herein above.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant material brought on record. No further arguments are put forth by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
9. ANALYSIS 9.1 The perusal of records and case law cited would reveal that there is very thin line distinction between the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of concealment of material information/ non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, i.e., FIR and its status more particularly, in light of the fact that appointment is sought in disciplined force such as Delhi Police. What is to be seen is that non -disclosure was fatal in given facts of case, gravity of offence(s), whether the acquittal simpliciter discharge or Hon'ble acquittal, Whether it is a case of giving the benefit of doubt, age of the applicant at the time of commission of alleged crime, place of crime, his social status and background. 9.2 The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondents are very relevant and un-disputed proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is true that the decision rendered in Dhaval Singh (Supra) has not been discussed in the aforesaid 14 O.A. No. 2497/2016 decisions relied by the learned counsel for respondents. Now what is to be seen is whether the present case is a case of concealment or voluntarily disclosure by the applicant before his appointment/ joining. The learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon Standing Order No.371 of 2011 issued by Competent Authority.
9.3 In the facts of the present case following facts emerge:-
9.3.1 At the time of recruitment process in the year 2013, the applicant was aged 20 years.
9.3.2 The applicant has disclosed his involvement in Criminal offence in the attestation form as well as application form to a kalendra which culminated into FIR No. 196/2012 dated 14.11.2012 reported in PS/Uchana, Haryana, U/s 147/452/323/506/149 IPC.
9.3.3 The applicant failed to disclose his involvement in yet another FIR No.765/2014 dated 22.09.2014 reported in PS/Jind City, Haryana, U/s 323/341/148/149/506 IPC.
9.3.4 immediately after his selection and upon realizing his mistake of non-disclosing of the aforesaid details, he on his own violation, moved an appropriate representation disclosing his involvement vide his application/communication letter dated 03.03.2016 before the Competent Authority alongwith the 15 O.A. No. 2497/2016 decisions dated 13.02.2013 in respect of first FIR and dated 05.03.2015 in respect of second FIR regarding clear acquittal of the applicant in the aforementioned FIRs.
9.3.5 That the disclosure was voluntarily made and was a bonafide mistake thus cannot be said to be concealment.
9.3.6 It is matter of fact that he was served with Show Notice dated 17.6.2016 by respondents only upon his disclosure vide his representation dated 3.3.2016.
9.3.7 In two criminal cases vide FIR No.(1) 196/2012 dated 14.11.2012 u/s. 147/452/323/506/149 IPC, PS/Uchana and (2) FIR No.765/2014 dated 22.09.2014 u/s. 323/341/148/149/506 IPC, PS/Jind in which later on you were acquitted by the Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 13.02.2013 and 05.03.2015 9.4 In the case of Commissioner Of Police And Anr Vs. Ramanuj Upadhyay on 9 July, 2012, in W.P.(C) 3926/2012, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under :-
"4. In view of Standing Order No. 371/2011 issued by Commissioner of Police, Delhi, the case of such a candidate as the respondent, where the criminal case was pending investigation or pending trial, the candidature is to be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the case. After the court's judgment if the candidate is acquitted or discharged, the case is to be referred to the Screening Committee of the Police Headquarters to assess his suitability for the appoint in the Delhi Police.
5. This procedure, which has been prescribed in the said standing order, had been followed. Subsequently, the respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court in Allahabad by an order dated 21st April, 2010. In the said order, it has been clearly held that the respondent, who was one of the accused in 16 O.A. No. 2497/2016 that case, was not involved in the said incident at all. It has been noted that on a careful analysis of evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be established by the prosecution that the accused, which included the respondent herein, were involved in the alleged acts. Consequently, by virtue of the said order dated 21st April, 2010 all the accused including the respondent Ramanuj Upadhyay were acquitted of all charges.
6. In view of the fact that the respondent had been acquitted in the said criminal case, his case for appointment was sent before the Screening Committee in view of the said guidelines prescribed in the said standing order. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 25th April, 2011 wherein it has been mentioned that the Screening Committee had examined the case of the respondent in detail and had not approved his case for appointment in the Delhi Police. It has been pointed out in the show cause notice that the Screening Committee while considering the case of the respondent, kept in view the attending circumstances, nature of offence, contents of FIR, nature of injuries, type of weapon used, judgment, grounds of acquittal and the role attributed to the respondent in the offence.
7. On receiving the said show cause notice, the respondent submitted his reply on 3rd May, 2011 wherein he has specifically stated that he had been clearly acquitted by the Trial Court and therefore, the factum of his name being mentioned in the same FIR could not be held against him. However, disregarding the plea taken by the respondent in his reply, the Dy. Commissioner of Police passed an Order dated 16th June, 2011 whereby the candidature of the respondent was cancelled. The cancellation order specifically indicated as under:-
"All his written and oral submission in details have been considered and found that the candidate was named in FIR for his involvement in a violent agitation/rioting, damaging public property, assaulting, causing simple/grievous injuries to public servant as well as press reporters and doing an act amounting to attempted culpable homicide. Such act is highly undesirable. His mob mentality and indulging in violent activities without fear of law of land renders him unsuitable for appointment in Delhi Police where the highest standards of discipline are maintained. As such, the candidature of the candidate Ramanuj Upadhyay, Roll No. 727227 for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, 2009(Phase-I) is hereby cancelled with immediate effect."
8. It is obvious from the facts as indicated above that the sole reason as to why the respondent's candidature has been cancelled was the fact that his name found mention in the said FIR. We have, time and again, reiterated that once a person has been acquitted in a criminal case, the factum of his name being mentioned in FIR cannot stand in the way of his employment with the Delhi Police. Here, we find that although 17 O.A. No. 2497/2016 the respondent had been clearly acquitted after a full fledged trial by the Trial Court, the petitioner still took into account the fact that his name has been mentioned in the FIR and concluded that, he had been involved in the alleged incident. This course of conduct is clearly untenable. It was open for the Screening Committee and for that matter the petitioner to have rejected the candidature of the petitioner on some other valid ground based on some other inquiries made by them but they could not have cancelled the candidature of the respondent solely on the ground that the petitioner's name found mentioned in the said FIR which culminated in an acquittal by the criminal court.
9. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal whereby the cancellation of the candidature has been quashed.
10. As we have directed in the case of Devender Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in WP(C)No. 8731/2011 decided on 30 th March, 2012 and several other similar matters, the petitioner is directed to issue an appointment letter to the respondent within four weeks subject to his otherwise being fit and completing all necessary formalities and requirements. The respondent would be entitled to seniority as well as pay and allowances from the date he joins the service. We, however, direct that the impugned order with regard to costs is set aside. Subject to these modifications, the Tribunal's order is upheld and the writ petition, to that extent, is dismissed. There is no order as to costs."
9.5 There is no independent inquiry held by the respondents to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations which were made against the petitioner in the FIR's that were registered against him and that he was acquitted in terms of Clause 2 (b) of the Standing Order No.371 of 2011. The action which has been taken is based on the disclosure made by the applicant himself and not on the basis of fact is subsequently on the basis of any verification report received from the District Authorities or otherwise. No such verification report is there. Hence, it is clear that the respondent themselves failed to carry out the guidelines in terms of Standing Order No.371 of 2011 and did not refer his case to Screening Committee.
18O.A. No. 2497/2016 9.6 We must also highlight that under the Delhi Police Rules, past involvement of a person in a criminal case is not a disqualification for appointment. It is true that Rule 6 thereof provides for grounds for ineligibility, criminal antecedents of a person are not mentioned as a ground for ineligibility. But, to conclude from this, instances of moral turpitude, however grave, could be overlooked because they do not find mention in Rule 6 would be absurd. There is a Standing Order No. 398/2010 issued by the Delhi Police to empower the police to take appropriate decision in such cases. Pertinently the respondents have not challenged the Standing Order. This Standing Order incorporates policy for deciding cases of candidates provisionally selected in Delhi Police involved in criminal cases (facing trial or acquitted). It would be appropriate to re-produce the relevant portions of the said Standing Order:
"STANDING ORDER NO. 398/2010 POLICY FOR DECIDING CASES OF CANDIDATES PROVISIONALLY SELECTED IN DELHI POLICE INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL CASES (FACING TRIAL OR ACQUITTED).
During the recruitments made in Delhi Police, several cases come to light where candidates conceal the fact of their involvement in criminal cases in the application Form/Attestation Form in the hope that it may not come to light and disclosure by them at the beginning of the recruitment process itself may debar them from participating in the various recruitment tests. Also the appointment if he/she has been acquitted but not honourably.
In order to formulate a comprehensive policy, the following rules shall be applicable for all the recruitments conducted by Delhi Police:-
1).xxx xxx xxx
2).xxx xxx xxx 19 O.A. No. 2497/2016
3).If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal cases, complaint case, preventive proceedings etc. and the case is pending investigation or pending trial, the candidature will be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the case. After the court_x0012_ judgment, if the candidate is acquitted or discharged, the case will be referred to the Screening Committee of the PHQ comprising of Special Commissioner of Police/Administration, Joint Commissioner of Police/Headquarters and Joint Commissioner of Police/Vigilance to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police.
4) If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement in criminal case, complaint case, preventive proceedings etc. both in the application form as well as in the attestation form but was acquitted or discharged by the court, his/her case will be referred to the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police.
5).xxx xxx xxx
6). Such candidates against whom charge-sheet in any criminal case has been filed in the court and the charges fall in the category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though later acquitted or acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or the witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person, he/she will generally not be considered suitable for government service. However, all such cases will be judged by the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess their suitability for the government job. The details of criminal cases which involve moral turpitude may kindly be perused at Annexure -A
7) Such cases in which a candidate had faced trial in any criminal case which does not fall in the category of moral turpitude and is subsequently acquitted by the court and he/she discloses about the same in both application form as well as attestation form will be judged by the Screening Committee to decide about his/her suitability for the government job.
8) xxx xxx xxx
9). If any candidate is discharged by extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 this will also not be viewed adversely by the department for his/her suitability for government service.
10). If a candidate was involved in a criminal case which was withdrawn by the State Government, he/she will generally be considered fit for government service, unless there are other extenuating circumstances.
Annexure - A as mentioned in Clause 6 above lays down the following offences involving moral turpitude: 20 O.A. No. 2497/2016
1. Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120-B, IPC)
2. Offences against the State (Sections 121 _x0016_130, IPC)
3. Offences relating to Army, Navy and Air Force (Sections 131- 134, IPC)
4. Offence against Public Tranquility (Section153_x0016_A & B, IPC).
5. False evidence and offences against Public Justice (Sections 193-216A, IPC)
6.Offences relating to coin and government stamps (Section 231-263A, IPC).
7.Offences relating to Religion (Section 295-297, IPC)
8.Offences affecting Human Body (Sections 302-304, 304B, 305-308, 311-317, 325-333, 335, 347, 348, 354, 363-373, 376- 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 377, IPC)
9.Offences against Property (Section 379-462,IPC)
10.Offences relating to Documents and Property Marks (Section 465-489, IPC)
11.Offences relating to Marriage and Dowry Prohibition Act (Section 498-A, IPC) 9.7 Clause 3 of the Comprehensive Policy delineated in the Standing Order is material for the present case. It refers to the Screening Committee comprising high police officers. After a candidate, who has disclosed his involvement, is acquitted or discharged, the Committee has to assess his/her suitability for appointment.
9.8 Clause 6 states that those against whom serious offences or offences involving moral turpitude are registered and who are later on acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or because the witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person shall not generally be considered suitable for government service. However, all such cases would be considered by the 21 O.A. No. 2497/2016 Screening Committee manned by senior officers. In our opinion, the word generally indicates the nature of discretion. As a matter of rule, such candidates have to be avoided. Exceptions will be few and far between and obviously must be substantiated with acceptable reasons.
9.9 A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to adjudge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such person's involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this Tribunal as its object appears to 22 O.A. No. 2497/2016 be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force.
9.10 Hence, in peculiar facts of the case, wherein the due process has not be followed inasmuch as the respondents have not taken into consideration their own Standing Order No.371/2011 as well as Standing Order No.398/2010 in right perspective. It is noticeable that offence(s) in FIR's against the applicant does not fall within scope and ambit of the Annexure -A to Standing Order No.398/2010 falling within of serious offence or "moral turpitude" so as to deny employment. Even otherwise, in present case the applicant has been honorably acquitted in both FIR's by the Court of Competent jurisdiction. There is no document on record to show that there is any appeal against such acquittal is pending and or order of reversal has been passed by Superior Court of Competent jurisdiction.
10. CONCLUSION
10.1 In view of the above analysis , we deem it appropriate to allow the present OA thereby quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 6.7.2016 (Annexure -A/2) thereby restoring the selection of candidature of the applicant to the Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police with directions to the respondents to refer the case of the applicant to the Screening Committee of respondents in light Standing Order No.371/2011 23 O.A. No. 2497/2016 as well as Standing Order No.398/2010 and consider case of applicant for appointment, if otherwise found suitable. Needless to say that the Screening Committee shall consider the case of applicant in a judicious manner for appointment keeping the view the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Devender Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in WP(C)No. 8731/2011 decided on 30th March, 2012 and several other similar matters followed by Commissioner of Police And Anr. vs Ramanuj Upadhyay on 9 July, 2012, in W.P.(C) 3926/2012, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and also Dhaval Singh case ( Supra). 10.2 The Screening Committee shall pass appropriate order(s) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. It is made clear that the applicant shall not be entitled to any consequential benefits including seniority and /or any notional benefit in the peculiar facts of the case.
10.3 The OA is allowed in aforesaid terms.
10.4 No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur)
Member (J) Member (A)
/sm/