Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjit Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 19 January, 2011
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
CWP No. 957 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 957 of 2011
Date of Decision 19.01.2011
Karamjit Singh -----Petitioner
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench and others ---Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The short issue raised in instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the petitioner who has been prosecuted albeit acquitted would qualify to be appointed as Constable in the Chandigarh Police. The facts have remained undisputed that the petitioner was selected as Constable in the year 2008 and his name figured at Serial No.24 in the main list of Scheduled Caste (Male) category. In the attestation form, he disclosed that he has been prosecuted in case FIR No. 169 dated 16.12.1998 but was acquitted vide judgment dated 17.05.2001 (P-1), passed by the learned Additional CJM, Chandigarh. The petitioner was not given appointment on the premise that the post of Constable is a sensitive post and being a disciplined force, it requires CWP No. 957 of 2011 -2- person of good character and suitable for such service.
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), has placed reliance on various judgments including the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 3 rendered in the case of Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, (1996)11 SCC 605, which reads as under:
"3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on 6.9.1995 in OA No. 1756 of 1991. The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90 with Roll No. 65790. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Aggrieved by proceedings dated 18.12.1990 culminating in cancellation of his provisional selection, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the CWP No. 957 of 2011 -3- important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offence, 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. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service."
3. The aforesaid view has also been approved later on by a three-Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish and another (2006) 1 SCC 779. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner Karamjit Singh was facing prosecution under Sections 392, 323, 325 IPC read with 392 IPC in case FIR No. 169 and he was acquitted vide order dated 17.05.2001 (P-1).
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the apparent settled legal position by the aforesaid judgment CWP No. 957 of 2011 -4- of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, we find no sustainable ground to admit the petition. The view taken by the Tribunal is based on rational analysis and deserves to be accepted. There is thus, no merit in the petition.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE January 19, 2011 Atul