Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Kuldeep Singh (Roll No.901704) vs Govt. Of Nctd Through on 14 August, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.4600/2011 NEW DELHI THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A) Shri Kuldeep Singh (Roll No.901704), Age-27 S/o Shri Om Raj Singh, R/o Village & Post Astauli, Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar (UP) -203202 Applicant (Through Shri Sachin Chauhan, Advocate) VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCTD through The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Recruitment, New Police Lines, New Delhi Respondents (Through Shri B.N.P. Pathak, Advocate) Order (Oral) Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A) The applicant of this OA had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in 2009. He was selected provisionally for the post subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents. In the application form, the applicant had informed about FIR No.153/2008 under Section 363/366/120-B IPC P.S. Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP). The applicant had been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case vide order dated 5.10.2010. He was given a show cause notice dated 3.03.2011 as to why his candidature for the post should not be cancelled. It had been stated in the notice that his case was examined by the Screening Committee which did not find him suitable for police service as he was associated in a case of kidnapping and rape of a minor girl. Therefore, his case was not recommended by the Screening Committee. The applicant sent a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure A-4). In the reply, the applicant had stated that in FIR No.153/2008, there was no mention of his name nor his connection to the crime. Even the prosecutrix did not name him in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. A copy of letter sent by Shri Suraj s/o of Shri Ram Narayan (Annexure A-3) stated that Shri Suraj had come to know that the applicant Kuldeep son of Omraj was allegedly helping the accused and that this fact was narrated to Shri Suraj by one Shri Virender son of Shri Prakash, Shri Mahender son of Shri Jai Ram and Shri Giriraj son of Shri Ram Das. Thus, the involvement of the applicant in the case was totally based on hearsay. In the criminal case, the applicant was acquitted from the charges as per judgment dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure A-8). The applicant has also stated in his reply that his real brother Shri Diwakar was seriously ill and on 14.06.2008, the date of alleged crime, he had gone with his brother to Sharda Hospital, Noida where Shri Diwakar was admitted as indoor patient. Shri Diwakar expired on 17.06.2008 at 2.10PM. Therefore, being involved with his brothers illness, he could in no way have been helping or supporting the offence that was committed.
2. Finally, vide order dated 22.03.2011 the candidature of the applicant has been rejected in a mechanical fashion without taking into consideration the facts mentioned by the applicant in reply to the show cause notice. The applicant has also relied on judgment of the Honble High Court in the case of Pramod Kumar, WP) No.4338/2010 whereby the appointment was given to Shri Pramod Kumar.
3. The OA has been filed seeking the following relief:
To set aside the impugned order at A-1 and A-2 and to further direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of constable (Ex) in Delhi Police with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been conceded that the applicant had disclosed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case FIR No.153/2008 in the attestation form. Accordingly, the matter was examined by the Screening Committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. After looking at the facts of the case, it was found that the prosecutrix had turned hostile and, therefore, for want of evidence, all the accused were acquitted. The Screening Committee observed that the applicant was associated in a case of kidnapping and rape and, therefore, it being a case of moral turpitude, his appointment in Delhi Police was not recommended. He was given a show cause notice dated 3.03.2011. The reply given by the applicant was considered in detail along with relevant record and in view of the observations made by the Screening Committee, he was found not suitable and his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) was cancelled vide order dated 22.03.2011. Thus, according to the respondents, action taken against the applicant is justified and as per law.
5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the record on file.
6. We find that there has been no concealment on the part of the applicant. When given the show cause, he has filed a detailed reply wherein he has tried to state that he had no connection with the offence and that there was no evidence whatsoever involving him. The applicant has also mentioned the fact of serious illness of his brother and taking him to the hospital where he died after three days. We find that in the impugned order dated 22.03.2011, a mention has been made to the reply given by the applicant that he is neither named in the FIR nor in the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC of the prosecutrix. It has been stated that the reply of the applicant was not found convincing and that since the applicant along with other accused were acquitted for want of evidence, the opinion of the Screening Committee that the applicant was associated in the offence has been relied upon.
7. We find no mention or consideration of the fact raised by the applicant that his real brother was seriously ill on the day the offence is stated to have been committed and that he expired three days later. The impugned order is strangely silent on this material fact. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter needs to be decided in the light of the material fact that the brother of the applicant was admitted in the hospital by the applicant himself on the day of the alleged incident and that he expired three days later. It is only after due consideration of these facts that the matter should be given finality.
8. Hence the impugned order dated 22.03.2011 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of the facts brought to the notice of the respondents by the applicant in his reply. Accordingly the matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 to decide it afresh in the light of our observations made above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Manjulika Gautam ) ( Meera Chhibber ) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/