Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suraj Prakash vs The Commissioner Of Police on 11 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.1055/2011 New Delhi this the 11th day of January, 2012. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Mrs. Manjulika Gautam,, Member (A) Suraj Prakash, S/o Shri Manan Ram, R/o Village Ghari Chhajuu, Post Jaursi, Teh, Smalkha, Distt. Panipat, Haryana. ..Applicant (By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan) Versus 1. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate (ITO), New Delhi. 2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Recruitment Cell, NPL, New Delhi. 3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police Establishment, Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. -Respondents (By Advocate Shri Vijay Pandita) O R D E R (ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J):
Applicant has filed this OA against the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure A-2), whereby candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police was cancelled with immediate effect, show cause notice dated 23.02.2010 (Annexure A-1), whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled and order dated 02.02.2011 (Annexure A-3) whereby the representation made by the applicant against cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Delhi Police was also rejected. It is these orders, which are under challenge in this OA. As can be seen from perusal of these documents, the candidature of the applicant was cancelled on the ground that he has not disclosed the fact of his involvement in criminal case FIR NO.47/2002 u/s 399/402 IPC & 25/54/59 IPC, PS Bapoli, Distt. Panipat (Haryana). A perusal of Annexure A-2 order further reveals that the said criminal case was decided by the Juvenile Justice Board, whereby he was acquitted by the court vide order dated 04.02.2009.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel of applicant submits that the matter in issue is no more res integra and is fully covered by the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in OA-2458/2011 Pradeep Hooda v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 10.01.2012 and the matter is not required to be referred to the respondents, as when the offence was committed and judgment was rendered applicant was a minor and as such he was acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Panipat.
3. We have given due consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the aforesaid judgment. We are of the view that the matter in controversy is fully covered by the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Hooda (supra). Thus, in view of the reasoning given by this Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Hooda (supra), which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present OA is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure A-2), whereby candidature of the applicant was cancelled and order dated 02.02.2011 (Annexure A-3) whereby the representation made by the applicant against cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Delhi Police was rejected, are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed, subject to applicant complying with other requirements/formalities, to consider his case for appointment in Delhi Police on the post of Constable (Executive) Male.
4. Registry is directed to place a copy of the judgment dated 10.01.2012 in OA No.2548/2011 Pradeep Hooda v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. in the case file of this OA.
(Manjulika Gautam) (M.L. Chauhan) Member (A) Member (J) San.