Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravinder Kumar, Recruit Constable ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 26 September, 2006
ORDER V.K. Agnihotri, Member (A)
1. The applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 09.12.2004 by which his request for compassionate appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) was rejected by the respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Heera Lal, No. 63/NW (father of Shri Ravinder Kumar, applicant herein), died on 09.12.2003 while in service. His wife Smt. Bakunti Devi made an application for appointment of her son, i.e. the applicant, in Delhi Police on compassionate ground. The case of the applicant was approved for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on compassionate ground by the Screening Committee headed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi in the meeting held on 12.07.2004. The DCP/2nd Bn. DAP was asked to complete the codal formalities i.e. medical examination and character & antecedents verification. Accordingly, the applicant was got medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi, where the Medical Officer declared him medically fit. His character & antecedents were also got verified from District Magistrate, Muraina, Madhya Pradesh, which revealed that he was involved in a Criminal Case vide FIR No. 735/97 Under Sections 3, 7, 8, E.C. Act, PS Kotwali Muraina, which had been filed in the Hon'ble Court. Later on, the Hon'ble Court vide its judgment in Special Case No. 13/1999 dated 21.06.2000 acquitted the applicant. Scrutiny of Attestation Form filled in by the applicant on 10.08.2004, too revealed that he had disclosed the fact of the above said criminal case in the relevant columns of the Attestation Form. The case was examined in Police Headquarters in detail and it was decided that he should not be taken into service due to his involvement in a criminal case. Hence, the approval of the applicant's appointment for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on compassionate ground, which was accorded by the Screening Committee headed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, was cancelled vide order dated 09.12.2004. Aggrieved by this decision of the respondent, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
3. The applicant has advanced the following arguments in support of his case:
The decision of the Selection Committee for compassionate appointment was suddenly cancelled without issue of Show Cause Notice through a cryptic and non-speaking order. The information regarding the criminal case, in which he was already acquitted, was given by the applicant himself voluntarily to the respondents. However, the same was not even required to be mentioned in the application form. Since the applicant had already been acquitted in the aforesaid case, the action of respondents to cancel the approval for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police, already accorded by respondent No. 1, by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 09.12.2004, on the basis of verification report, is illegal and totally unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is liable to be set aside/quashed.
Mere involvement in a criminal case is not an impediment for appointment to the post of Constable (Executive). Moreover, after a person has been already acquitted from the criminal charges, any stigma attached to a criminal case is obliterated and, as such, the applicant cannot be denied the appointment. Moreover, normally a conviction results in ineligibility for appointment in Government service, but since the applicant has already been acquitted from the criminal charges, he is eminently eligible for appointment.
The respondents failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Government service is not such a heaven where only angel should seek entry. Moreover, as per Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr. , has ruled that even conviction for petty offences under the IPC, which are mostly committed by the young or the inexperienced, should not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in the Government service. Therefore, the applicant is liable to be appointed.
In the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Ors. 1982 (1) SLR 573, it has been held that acquittal of a Government servant, even on benefit of doubt, is complete acquittal on merits and consequently, the concerned Government servant shall be entitled to full pay and allowances. The acquittal of the applicant, on the other hand, in the criminal case was not even on benefit of doubt but rather complete acquittal on merits, since there was no incriminating evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed.
In the present recruitment Shri Braham Prakash, Roll No. 400076, was also involved in a criminal case under Section 308 IPC and was acquitted of the charges by the Court as the matter was compromised by both the parties and witnesses did not support the prosecution case, and was appointed as a Constable; but the applicant has been discriminated against by arbitrarily canceling his approval for appointment.
The respondents have exceeded their jurisdiction by sitting over the decision of the Trial Court, since an acquittal is an acquittal and unless some insinuation or indictment is reflected in the judgment, the same cannot be construed otherwise. Further, once the evidence was not brought forward to sustain the charge, the acquittal of the applicant is liable to be treated as on merits and, therefore, on those allegations the honesty and integrity of the applicant cannot be doubted.
The applicant has finally stated that after the death of his father, his family is in penury and without any means of livelihood. The applicant has no immovable property either in his own name or in the name of any other family member from which he could earn his livelihood. The applicant is not employed anywhere. The father of the applicant was the sole bread earner of the family and after his death the whole burden of the family has fallen on applicant's shoulders.
4. The case of the respondents is that the DCP/2nd Bn. DAP, being the appointing authority, was asked to complete the formalities for appointment i.e. medical examination and character and antecedent verification. On receipt of the character and antecedents report of the applicant from the authority concerned, the case of the applicant was examined in Police Headquarters, Delhi and it was decided that the applicant should not bet taken into service due to his involvement in a criminal case, as the acquittal seems to have taken place on account of technical flaws. The approval of the applicant's appointment for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police on compassionate ground, which was already accorded by the Screening Committee headed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, was accordingly cancelled. Though the applicant was discharged or acquitted of the Criminal offences, what is relevant is the conduct and character of a candidate who is to be appointed to a service. Therefore, the action taken by the respondents is legal and justified. As regards the case of Braham Prakash, cited by the applicant, it is stated that he was involved in a criminal case Under Section 308 IPC in which he was acquitted, as both the parties had compromised. His case was examined in Police Headquarters and was decided to call him to join the department as Constable (Executive). No moral turpitude was involved in the criminal case in which he was involved.
5. In the rejoinder, apart from reiterating the arguments advanced by him in the OA, the applicant has further stated that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar , is not applicable in the present case since that case was on the issue of concealment whereas there is no concealment in the present case on the part of the applicant. Further, when on consideration of the evidence led, the applicant was acquitted, the acquittal amounts to acquittal on merits and not on the basis of any technical flaw. Moreover, similarly 20 cases were allowed by this Tribunal, in Ram Pal etc. v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. etc. 2005 (1) ATJ 201.
6. In the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. v. Deepak Kumar and Ors. WP (C) No. 6042-43/2005 et al decided on 28.11.2005, wherein it was held that only because a person is involved in some criminal case and wherein also an order of acquittal is passed, he cannot be disqualified from entering into service. Again, in that case, it was found that petitioners had cancelled the candidature of a few persons on the ground that they were not suitable for the post of Constable whereas, in case of some other similarly situated persons, against whom also there were criminal cases, the petitioners had taken a decision to allow them to join and work as Constable in the same Police Department. In this context, it was observed that there could be no different yardstick for those persons who have been acquitted honourably to be treated differently from those persons who were also involved in criminal cases but were acquitted on benefit of doubt. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that in some other cases the Commissioner of Police had allowed the applicants to join the post considering the gravity of offence in which they were involved and also the nature of the order passed by the Criminal Court, the Hon'ble High Court felt that it will be appropriate to remand back these matters to the Commissioner of Police, who shall appreciate the nature and gravity of the offences in which the respondents were involved and the manner in which they were acquitted. He shall then pass an appropriate order giving reasons for his decision.
7. The learned Counsel for the applicant pointed out that out of 19 respondents in the above mentioned case Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. v. Deepak Kumar and Ors. (supra), seven have already been appointed. In response, the learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that remaining persons, who were not selected, had filed an SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed. In any case, the order of the Hon'ble High Court in that case had not laid down any law. Moreover, in the said judgment, a reference has been made to the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar (supra) wherein it was held that it is not desirable to appoint a person with doubtful antecedents in a disciplined force. Verification of character and antecedents has relevance and bearing on the issue of appointment of a person to a disciplined force like the Police Force. Same was the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Farooq Ahmed v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. WP (C) No. 4434/2005 decided on 04.04.2005. Learned Counsel for the respondents further pointed out that the phrase "honourable acquittal" has not been used in the order of Hon'ble Special Judge, Muraina (supra) in which the applicant was acquitted.
8. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record as well as citations provided by the learned Counsels.
9. We appreciate that the applicant had not concealed his involvement in the criminal case insofar as he disclosed the information in the Attestation Form. We are in respectful agreement with the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. v. Deepak Kumar and Ors. (supra) that verification of character and antecedents has relevance and bearing on the issue of appointment of a person to a disciplined force like Police Force and if on the basis of character and antecedents verification it is decided that he is not a suitable and desirable person to be appointed, interference with such a decision is not warranted. However, we find that the applicant's approval for appointment by the Commissioner of Police was cancelled by the impugned order dated 09.12.2004 without giving any reasons. Although, the learned Counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the reasons have been provided in the counter filed by the respondents, we cannot accept this plea in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi , wherein it was held that executive action has to be judged by the reasons stated in the order and supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavits have to be excluded.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we feel that the interest of justice would be met if the respondents re-consider the case of the applicant in the light of the various rulings cited above, particularly those relating to Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. v. Deepak Kumar (supra) and Ram Pal etc. v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. etc. (supra).
11. In the result, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in the light of our comments and observations aforementioned, and pass an appropriate orders giving reasons with a copy thereof to the applicant to enable him to take recourse of the appropriate remedy in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.