Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mandeep Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police on 4 January, 2024
1
O.A. No. 30/2023
Item No. 45 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 30/2023
M.A. No. 46/2023
This the 04th Day of January, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
1. Mandeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Ramdhari,
R/o Village Habatpur,
PO Nirjan, Hrayana-126102
Distt. Jind
(Group 'C')
(Candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.)]
....Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Mr. Jatin Prashar)
VERSUS
1. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New Building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(Recruitment Cell)
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110052
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Headquarters (II), Police Headquarters,
Delhi Police Hdqrs (New Building)
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001 .... RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
2
O.A. No. 30/2023
Item No. 45 (C-4)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) The applicant was an aspirant for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and participated in the recruitment process for the same during the year 2012. The applicant claims that he was placed very high in the merit list in the competitive selection process and subsequently, qualified the physical and medical tests also. However, inspite of his meritorious position, his name was excluded from the list of selected candidates without assigning any reason whatsoever. The action of the respondents was put to challenge by him in an earlier round of litigation in OA No 1160 of 2013 and on the directions of the Tribunal in the aforesaid OA, the result of the applicant was declared wherein he was declared successful.
2. It is pertinent to mention that prior to this, the Tribunal's order was assailed in the Hon'ble High Court by way of a Writ Petition which stood dismissed. However, despite the applicant having been successful in the examination, a Show Cause Notice was issued to him by the Staff Selection Commission which got quashed in the second round of litigation in OA No 3543 of 2014.
3O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4)
3. The Staff Selection Commission agitated the matter up to the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, without any success. Finally, on 19.03.2018, the final result was published which declared the applicant as having been selected for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi police and accordingly, his dossier was forwarded for the purpose of assigning him an offer of appointment. Instead of acting upon the dossier sent by the Staff Selection Commission, the Delhi Police issued the following Show Cause Notice to him proposing cancellation of his candidature on the ground of his alleged involvement in a criminal case. The said Show Cause Notice is reproduced below verbatim :
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF POLICE, RECRUITMENT, NEW POLICE LINE KINGSWAY CAMP, NEW DELHI - 110009 Tele No. 011-27417357, FAX - 011 27210310, Email - [email protected] No. 3199 Rectt. Cell/NPL dated New Delhi the 15/06/2018 Sh. Mandeep Kumar (Roll No. 2201069041) S/o Sh. Ramdhari Vill. Haibatpur, P.O. Nirjan Distt. - Jind, Haryana - 126102 Sub :- Recruitment to the post of S.I. (Exe.) in Delhi Police 2012 Reg. Show Cause Notice for cancellation of candidature You candidate Sh. Mandeep Kumar (Roll No. 2201069041) were provisionally selected for the post of S.I. (Exe.) in Delhi Police Exam - 2012 subject to verification of character and antecedents and final checking of documents.
In the attestation form and the documents enclosed by you revealed that FIR No. 06 dated 10 2016 was registered against you in Police 4 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) Station Sardar Jind u/s 188 IPC & 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act and you were discharged on 03.12.2013 You are therefore, called upon to justify as to why your candidature for the post of S.I. (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police - 2012 should not be cancelled due to your alleged involvement in the above criminal case which raises question on your fitness for joining disciplinary force like Delhi Police. Your reply along with the copies of the FIR, Judgment of Hon'ble Court and all supporting documents should reach this office within 15 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 your candidature for the above said post will be decided on its merits.
(15/06/2018) VIKRAM K. PORWAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RECRUITMENT, DELHI No. /Rectt. Cell, NPL dated New Delhi the /2018 Copy to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Establishment Delhi for Information (15/06/2018) VIKRAM K. PORWAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RECRUITMENT, DELHI
4. The applicant, in reply, clarified that his involvement in the said FIR was never established and no charge sheet against him was filed in any court of law. In fact, there was a categorical observation by the trial court that there is no evidence hinting at the involvement of the applicant whatsoever. However, without taking into consideration his reply and the details contained therein, the respondents 5 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) resorted to cancellation of the candidature of the applicant vide order dated 18.12.2018.
5. The action of the respondents was challenged in OA No 453 of 2019 which was allowed on 21.12.2021 by giving the following observations and directions.
6. Before quoting the relevant extracts, we would like to record that the respondents have made their decision upon the provisions of the standing order number 5459/Rectt. Cell/NPL dated New Delhi the 18/12/2018 of Delhi Police and further, referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in certain matters. The relevant extracts of the order of this Tribunal which deserve our consideration in deciding the present OA are as under :
11. The components and reasons in Standing Order No.398/2018 referred above relate to concealment, suppression or giving false information, furnishing forges documents etc. relating to criminal matters. It further includes aspects relating to acquittal. As none of the elements are present in the instant case, we see no reason how the said order can be applied here.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents has mainly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar in Civil Appeal No.4960/2021 dated 25.08.2021, which has reference to certain other pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case do not fit into the situations contemplated in the cases referred in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of 6 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) police vs. Raj Kumar (supra). All these cases are relating to acquittal. In the instant case the most important difference is that even the investigating agency, namely, the local police did not find enough materials to make the applicant an accused. In fact, when the applicant went before the Hon'ble Court seeking discharge, his application was disposed of with the following order (Annexure A/14):
"File taken up today as an application for discharging applicant Mandeep has been filed, Heard. The applicant has not been charge-sheeted as an accused in this case and hence, the question of discharging him does not arise. The application is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. Adjourned to 15.09.2018 for the date already fixed purpose already fixed."
Thus, we see no reason how a proposition of law laid down in the context of acquittal can be relied upon in the present case.
13. As far as reference to the scope of judicial review being restricted to only certain elements is concerned, it has to be appreciated in its proper context.
14. To our understanding, the context in which these observations were made in Raj Kumar (supra) relate to judging the suitability of a person to a public office or post. A body constituted for selection has to go into various dimensions and only after collating a variety of multi-dimensional information can they arrive at a decision relating to someone's suitability for a certain position or otherwise. Such an exercise can be carried out only by an expert body. It is in this context that the extent of judicial review is restricted. The issue here is not one of who should be included for selection. On the contrary, it is one in which it has to be decided whether one who has been otherwise found suitable for selection should be excluded from appointment base on assessment relating to his involvement in crime. The scope of judicial review as it relates to the narrow confines of exclusion, in the facts and circumstance of the present 7 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) case as explained above, cannot be compared with that relating to appreciation of suitability for selection.
15. We, thus, proceed to examine the matter further.
16. The act of the respondents also fails the test of reasonableness. In the present case, the applicant was not even made an accused by the police. Going by the documents on record, the only reason why the case of the applicant was not recommended for appointment was the statement of t he accused. We fail to understand how merely the statement of the accused which is not supported by the outcome of investigation can have such overwhelming force so as to deny appointment to a person who was otherwise selected through a due process, on the ground of criminal conduct.
17. From the limited portion of the Minutes of the Screening Committee brought on record, it is seen that a similarly placed person has been recommended for appointment. Another person who was charge sheeted and acquitted has also been recommended. The respondents have been unable to justify this arbitrariness.
18. Under the circumstances and for the reasons explained above, we set aside the orders dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure A-1) and 15.06.2018 (Annexure A-2). The respondent are directed to consider the case of the applicant afresh as per law and in view of the observations made above. If the applicant is otherwise found fulfilling the required conditions, he shall be offered appointment to the post selected for, from the date he, otherwise, would have been eligible for, with such notional seniority as would have so accrued. However, there shall be no back wages.
19. The O.A. is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
7. After consideration of the directions of the Tribunal, the respondents passed the following order :
8O.A. No. 30/2023
Item No. 45 (C-4) OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE :
RECRUITMENT : DELHI NEW POLICE LINES, KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI-110009, Telephone : 011-27412715, E-mail :
[email protected] No. 1904/Rectt. Cell(SL,DA-I)/NPL dated the 07/06/2022.
To ShriMandeep Kumar [Roll No. 2201069041] S/o ShriRamdhari, R/o Village-Haibatpur, PO-Nirjan, District Jind, Haryana-126102.
Subject :- Recruitment to the post of SI (Exe.) in Delhi Police-2012.
[Regarding cancellation of candidature].
In pursuance of the directions dated 21.12.2021 passed by Hon'ble CAT in OA No.453/2019 - Mandeep Kumar Vs. CP/Delhi, your case was placed before the Screening Committee in order to assess your suitability for the post of SI(Exe.) in Delhi Police in view of your involvement in criminal case FIR No.6/2016 u/s. 188/34 IPC and 1/14/61 of Punjab Excise Act, PS-Sadar, Jind (Haryana).
The Screening Committee re-examined your case and observed that your name was placed in column No. 12 due to lack of evidence as your escaped from the spot but your role and involvement in the above said case cannot be ruled out as evident from the FIR itself. The committee also observed that your involvement in Excise Act shows your propensity to indulge in crime without fear of law and it would not be in public interest to appoint such person in a law enforcing agency and disciplined force like Delhi Police.
In view of above, the Screening Committee not found you suitable and hence, not recommended your case for appointment as SI(Exe.) in Delhi Police.
[SUKANT S. BALLABH] DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HEADQUARTERS (II) : DELHI 9 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) No. ________________ / Rectt. Cell (SI/DA-I)/NPL dated the ________/2022 Copy forwarded for information & necessary action to the :-
1. Inspr. Rectt. Cell/PHQ w.r.t. PHQ's U.O. No. SI-2012/1545/Rectt. Cell (AC-II) PHQ, dated 25.05.2022
2. R-III/Court desk/SI/Rectt. Cell/NPL w.r.t. endst. No. 3656/Rectt.
Cell (III) Court desk/NPL, dated 27.05.2022.
8. The prayer for relief made by the applicant in the present OA vide para 8, against the background and history of the case, reads as under :
a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 (Annexure/1)
b) Direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Sub-
Inspector (Exe.)
c) Accord all consequential benefits.
d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
e) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the impugned order i.e. order dated 07.06.2022 which relies upon the recommendations of the Screening Committee, is in gross contradiction and contravention to the specific observations and directions of the Tribunal in OA No 453 of 2020 which had elaborately examined the entire issue. In fact, there is no doubt that there was a categorical direction to the respondents to give appointment to the applicant. 10 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4)
10. Drawing attention to the minutes of the meeting of the Screening Committee which has been filed by the respondents, he argues that the Screening Committee has also failed to give any consideration to the observations and directions of the Tribunal in the aforesaid OA.
11. Mr. Luthra, learned counsel concludes his arguments by stating that neither the directions of the Standing Order which has been the basis of passing the impugned order, are sustainable as the finding upon this issue has already been given by this Tribunal nor the discussion and opinion of the Screening Committee would be acceptable since these issues have been duly recorded, opined and adjudicated upon by this Tribunal. At this stage, the respondents were precluded from forming their own opinion on the issue that too add to what the Tribunal had already established. Upon these grounds, the impugned order vide which the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
12. Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contests the averments made in the OA and the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant.
13. At the outset, he draws attention to the fact that alleging non compliance of the directions of the Tribunal by the 11 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) respondents in OA No 4153 of 2019, the applicant had moved a Contempt Petition before this Tribunal with stood dismissed. He further submits that a careful reading of the order of the Tribunal in OA No 453 of 2019 dated 21.12.2021 upon which the applicant and his learned counsel places reliance, would indicate that the direction to the respondents was to consider the case of the applicant afresh as per law. Although, he fairly admits that a further direction was given that the observations made by the Tribunal have also to be duly considered.
14. Learned counsel would argue that not only has the Screening Committee considered the same in accordance with law but has also carefully examined the whole gamut of issues involved and only thereafter made its recommendations.
15. He further argues that the case of the applicant has been examined by the appropriate Screening Committee on more than one occasion and the latest minutes of the meeting of the Screening Committee unambiguously mention that no mala fide could be attributed to the Screening Committee; the Screening Committee meticulously re-examined the main plea put forth by the applicant in his reply to the Show Cause Notice with an open mind. Therefore, learned counsel concludes, the Screening Committee has considered the 12 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) contents of the Show Cause Notice, reply of the applicant, the background of the entire case and by way of a very reasoned opinion, held that the case of the applicant cannot be recommended since he is seeking appointment to a disciplinary force wherein zero tolerance of any misconduct or misdemeanor is the norm.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents further draws support from the following judgments :
i.The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Bhupendra Yadav, SLP (Civil) No. 27301/2018 ii.Sanny Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. Writ Petition No. 7114/2020 iii.National Pharmaceutical Pric. A vs. Garima Seth and Ors.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and also carefully gone through the documents on record. We are very conscious of the fact that the appreciation of the facts, circumstances as also the issue at stake, should strictly be made on the basis of the order of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation in OA No 453 of 2019 dated 21/12/2021.
18. We have elaborately quoted the relevant extract of the said order in one of the preceding paragraphs. At the cost of repetition, we would like to reiterate that the Tribunal had made a specific observation that the act of the respondents 13 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) fails the test of "reasonableness". The Tribunal had further observed that the applicant was not even made an accused in the criminal case and there was absolutely no ground before the respondents to deny him appointment as he had been selected through a due process. We cannot also over look a specific observation that the person who was similarly placed, was recommended for appointment and another person who had been charge sheeted and subsequently acquitted, was recommended. The Tribunal in that order had recorded that the respondents have not been able to justify their action which was termed as "arbitrariness". It was against this background and such observations that the orders of the respondents were set aside with a further direction to reconsider the case of the applicant afresh as per law and "in view of the observations made above".
19. The Tribunal in its order did not stop here. It further directed that if the applicant is "otherwise" found fulfilling the required conditions, he should be offered appointment to the post to which he was selected, from the date he "otherwise" would have been eligible. The direction was also given to assign notional seniority; the only condition put was that the applicant would not be entitled to back wages. 14 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4)
20. We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that against the background of such unambiguous observations and directions, it was not open for the respondents to review the entire matter; the only limited issue which was to be seen was the "otherwise" eligibility of the applicant. The Screening Committee has no doubt drawn out a detailed matrix and the history of the case. However, it has not made even a whisper of the specific observations and directions of the Tribunal in the order which has been extensively quoted above. In fact, the Screening Committee appears to have re-examined the issue which had been already decided by the Tribunal. The committee again decided that the applicant is not suitable for appointment in Delhi Police by adducing the same very grounds which had been set aside and which had been held to be suffering from arbitrariness and were also termed as "failing the test of reasonableness" by the Tribunal.
21. We do recognise that the eligibility of the applicant is necessarily to be determined before considering him fit for appointment. However, in the instant case, this eligibility was to be determined only in terms of his possessing the requisite qualifications, supported by documents, in terms of the relevant rules and certainly not on account of his name having been figured in an FIR. That issue had already been fully 15 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) settled and the Tribunal had made no bones about it in its order which has been quoted above.
22. We have taken due note of the judgements being relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of the decision that the applicant is not fit to be appointed in Delhi Police. In Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 4960/2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under :
29. Public service - like any other, pre-supposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.
30. The High Court's approach, evident from its observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural setting. This court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender's conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without 16 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour. Each case is to be scrutinized by the concerned public employer, 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.
23. He has argued that the action of the respondents gets fully supported by this judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We have carefully gone through the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. The relevant judgments have also been elaborately discussed and analysed meticulously in the earlier order of the Tribunal.
24. As we have clearly recorded above, the matter and the entire gamut of issues involved have been considered and analysed threadbare by the co-ordinate bench in its earlier order, hence, there is no cause before us to hold any divergent view nor has such an occasion arisen.
25. Against the background of what has been detailed and discussed above, the OA is allowed. The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to issue an offer of appointment to the applicant forthwith, of course subject to his fulfilling "other eligibility criteria set forth in the recruitment rules". To obviate any possibility of misinterpretation of this order, we clarify that further 17 O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4) eligibility of the applicant would be confined to the eligibility set forth in the recruitment rules and not on any other extraneous factor, including the past history of the applicant having been named in the FIR, as this issue has already been conclusively decided. The appointment to the applicant shall be given with effect from the date he would have been appointed in the normal course pursuant to his selection for the post. Necessary consequential benefits shall be extended in his favour as a sequel to this order and subsequent offer of appointment. These benefits in his favour shall strictly be on notional basis till the date he assumes charge of his position subsequent to his appointment and on actual basis w.e.f. the said date.
26. We are consciously not remanding the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration as liberty on an earlier occasion was already afforded to them and we have already observed that the respondents exceeded their jurisdiction by re-examining the issue which had already been decided by the Tribunal.
27. The directions contained herein shall be complied with as expeditiously as possible and in no case later than a period of four weeks' time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
18O.A. No. 30/2023 Item No. 45 (C-4)
28. The OA stands allowed against the background of the aforesaid directions. Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order with respect to the cost.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/NISHA/