Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manish Saini vs Comm. Of Police on 10 June, 2022
1
OA-3065/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 3065/2019
Reserved on :05.05.2022.
Pronounced on : 10.06.2022
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Sh. Manish Saini,
S/o Sh. Satpal Saini,
R/o H.No. 340/2, Garhi Mohalla,
Near Jat Dharmashala,
Rohtak-124001. ..... Applicant
(through Sh. Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ MSO Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Recruitment)
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi-110009. ..... Respondents
(through Sh. Amit Anand, Advocate)
ORDER
Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A) The applicant participated in the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspector (SI) (Exe.) Male, in 2 OA-3065/2019 Delhi Police during the year 2017. He was declared provisionally selected. The applicant was subsequently issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 31.05.2019 indicating therein that he was provisionally selected for the post of SI(Ex) in Delhi Police Exam-2017 subject to verification of character and antecedents and final checking of documents. It was also stated that the applicant had mentioned the fact he was arrested in a criminal case vide FIR No.117 dated 12.07.2011. This fact was also confirmed by the District Magistrate Rohtak during the verification. It was also mentioned that the applicant was acquitted by the Hon‟ble Court of AJM, Sonipat. The SCN was issued to the applicant as to why his candidature for the post of SI (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police should not be cancelled due to his alleged involvement in criminal case. As required the applicant submitted various documents along with his reply denying that he was involved in the criminal activity and submitted that the criminal case was false, motivated and lodged at the behest of his close 3 OA-3065/2019 relatives. Applicant further reiterated that he has been acquitted by the Court. However, the respondents cancelled his candidature vide impugned order dated 24.09.2019 stating that the reply of the applicant to the SCN has not been found convincing. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his candidature, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
"(a) Quash and set aside the order/actions of the respondents dated 31/052019 and 24.09.2019 placed at Annexure A/1 and A/2, respectively.
(b)Direct the respondents to further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) (Male) in Delhi Police.
(c) Accord all consequential benefits.
(d) Award costs of the proceedings."
2. It is the contention of the applicant that a false case was registered against him and that he has been granted clean acquittal in the said case by the Hon‟ble Court of AJM, Sonipat. He has also highlighted observations made in the judgment with regard to his acquittal. He also claims that the judgments relied upon by the respondents in the 4 OA-3065/2019 impugned order are not applicable to the facts of his case, specifically the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4842/2013 (Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh) and Civil Appeal No. 4965/2013 (Commissioner of Police, Delhi &Ors. Vs. Shani Kumar).
3. Respondents have filed the counter-affidavit opposing the O.A. It is submitted that the applicant had appeared in the selection conducted by SSC vide notification dated 22.04.2017. He was provisionally selected subject to completion of codal formalities i.e. satisfactorily completion of character and antecedents and final checking of documents etc. Subsequently, the applicant submitted the attestation form indicating that he was involved in a criminal case vide FIR No. 117/2011 dated 12.07.2011 u/s 398/401 IPC and section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, PS Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana and was acquitted by the Court. The respondents examined his case in terms of 5 OA-3065/2019 Standing Order No. 398/2018 and a SCN dated 31.05.2019 was issued to him stating as to why his candidature for the post of SI (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police-2017 should not be cancelled for reasons mentioned therein. The Screening Committee thereafter examined the case of the applicant and did not recommend him for appointment. The applicant was accordingly informed vide impugned order dated 24.09.2019 about cancellation of his candidature. The respondents have relied upon a number of judgments and orders of the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the Tribunal in support of their action. They have also stated that Standing Order No. 398/2018 of Delhi Police specifically provides for evaluation by the Screening Committee and actions to be taken in such cases. The case of the applicant was thoroughly examined by the Screening Committee and was not recommended in accordance with law. Respondents have relied upon the following judgments in support of their argument:-
6
OA-3065/2019 "i. Avtar Singh Vs. UOI &Ors., SLP(C) 20525/2011.
ii. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh, Civil Appeal No. 4842/2013.
iii. Commissioner of Police, Delhi &Ors. Vs. Shani Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4965/2013.
iv. Jainendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5671/2012.
v. State of M.P. &Ors. Vs. Parvez Khan, Civil Appeal No. 10613/2014.
vi. Union Territory Chandigarh Administration &Ors.
Vs. Pradeep Kumar &Ors., Civil Appeal No. 67/2018."
4. During the arguments, learned counsel of the respondents has further relied upon three other judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. Vs. Bunty, Civil Appeal No. 3046/2019 dated 14.03.2019, Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4960/2021 dated 25.08.2021 and UOI &Ors. Vs. Methu Meda, Civil Appeal No. 6238/2021 dated 06.10.2021.
5. Heard Sh. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents.7
OA-3065/2019
6. The applicant was provisionally selected for the post of SI(Ex) Male in Delhi Police Exam-2017 subject to completion of character and antecedents and final checking of documents etc. His dossier was sent to the Delhi Police Department vide letter dated 03.01.2019. Thereafter, the applicant was called upon to complete codal formalities and fill up the attestation form etc. for the purpose of police verification of his character and antecedents. The applicant mentioned in the attestation form that he was involved in a criminal case vide FIR No. 117 dated 12.07.2011 u/s 398/401 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, PS Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana and was subsequently acquitted. His case was examined by the Standing Committee in terms of Standing Order No. 398/2018 of Delhi Police, which outlines the policy for deciding cases of provisionally selected candidates in Delhi Police who have disclosed their involvement in criminal cases/acquittal/discharge etc. The Standing Committee did not recommend his case. In terms of 8 OA-3065/2019 provisions of Standing Order, a SCN dated 31.05.2019 was issued to the applicant. This SCN referred to the disclosures made by the applicant about criminal case and subsequent report received from District Magistrate, Rohtak confirming the same. Subsequent acquittal of the applicant by the Hon‟ble Court of AJM, Sonipat was also mentioned. The applicant was, therefore, called to justify as to why his candidature for the post of SI (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police should not be cancelled due to his alleged involvement in the criminal case, which raises question of his fitness to join a disciplined force like Delhi Police. The applicant was also asked to submit copies of documents including charge sheet etc. along with his reply. The applicant submitted his reply to the SCN on 07.06.2019 along with relevant papers. His case was put up before the Screening Committee. Meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 17.06.2019 under the Chairmanship of Spl. CP/Hdqrs. & Rectt., Joint CP/Hdqrs. and Addl. CP/Vigilance to assess the 9 OA-3065/2019 suitability of 11 candidates for appointment as SI(Exe.) including the applicant due to their involvement in criminal cases. The Screening Committee examined the case of the applicant in terms of SO No. 398/2018 and also keeping in view the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. UOI &Ors.(supra), Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh(supra) and Commissioner of Police, Delhi &Ors. Vs. Shani Kumar (supra). The observations of the Screening Committee as provided in the counter affidavit are as under:-
"the accused acquitted of the charges as prosecution failed to establish the case as no independent police witness was joined and all PWs were police officials. However, the candidate was involved in serious nature of offence like attempt to robbery and were possession of spring actuated knives for which Section 25 Arms Act was also registered. Possession of knife to rob people shows his criminal tendency with disrespect for law and as such make him unfit/unsuitable for service in a discipline force and law enforcing agency like police. Sub-Inspectors (Exe.) in Delhi Police as the cutting edge in the police functioning and upper subordinate rank officers. The candidate having such dubious character cannot be appointed as it would not be in public interest. His reply to the show cause notice is not convincing. Hence, not recommended."10
OA-3065/2019 Screening Committee did not recommend the case of the applicant and he was advised vide impugned order dated 24.09.2019 about cancellation of his candidature for the post of SI (Exe.) in Delhi Police Exam-2017. Before taking note of the judgments relied upon, the Standing Order No. 398/2018 of Delhi Police needs to be examined. Relevant provisions of the same are as under extracted :-
"3.IN CASE OF DISCLOSURE OF INVOLVEMENT/ ARREST/ACQUITTAL/DISCHARGE ETC. IN CRIMINAL CASE.
(A) If a candidate had disclosed his/her acquittal/discharge/conviction in criminal case(s), complaint case(s) etc. in the Attestation form, the Appointing Authority after obtaining the information of appeal/revision against the acquittal/discharge etc. shall issue show cause notice for the cancellation of his/her candidature before final decision in the matter.
(B) On receipt of candidate‟s reply, complete case may be sent to PHQ to assess the suitability for appointment in Delhi Police by the Screening Committee. From the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in cases of Mehar Singh, Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar, it is clear that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the provisionally 11 OA-3065/2019 selected candidate for appointment to the post. The Screening Committee will still have the opportunity to consider antecedents and examine whether he/she is suitable for appointment to the post in Delhi Police. The Screening Committee must also be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost care.
i) Even after due opportunity, the candidate
still fails to enclose/provide the
certified/photocopies of the record/ investigation and trial along with reply to the show cause notice, then an adverse inference will be drawn against him/her.
However, in such a case the Department shall make all efforts to obtain the relevant documents from the authorities concerned and then the matter should be submitted before the Screening Committee for its recommendation.
ii) The recommendation of the Screening Committee may not be as reasoned and speaking, as that of a quasi judicial authority, but it should contain the view of the Committee on:
a) The nature and extent of involvement of the candidate in the criminal case.
b) Whether he/she is acquitted on compromise/ benefit of doubt/witnesses turning hostile or honorably. In cases where acquittal was out of compromise or benefit of doubt, the Screening Committee shall offer reasoned and speaking comments.12
OA-3065/2019
c) Nature and gravity of the charge etc.
d) Such comment of the Screening Committee would not amount to its sitting on the judgment like a trial court, but would only amount to assessment of the suitability of a candidate involved in a criminal case for appointment in Delhi Police.
e) The final decision on the show cause notice shall be passed as per the recommendations of the Screening Committee. If the Committee does not recommend the case, show cause notice may be confirmed and candidature may be cancelled by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The Complete dossiers of such candidate must be kept in record."
7. This brings us to the argument as to whether in view of acquittal in criminal proceedings the respondents can cancel the candidature of the applicant. In this case the applicant was acquitted by the Hon‟ble Court of AJM Sonipat. His candidature has however been cancelled in view of his alleged involvement in criminal case for which he was 13 OA-3065/2019 arrested. The Hon‟ble Court of AJM, Sonipat vide order dated 08.11.2012 granted acquittal to the applicant. The concluding paras of the order are as under:-
"23. In view of the foregoing discussion, I arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, they are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted of the charges for which they are facing trial.
24. The case property shall stand confiscated to the State and it will be disposed of at appropriate time in accordance with law, after the expiry of period of limitation for appeal or revision or the decision thereon, if any, filed. File be considered to the record room."
It is not upto this Tribunal to analyse the judgment passed by the Trial Court dated 08.11.2012. However, this has to be viewed in terms of the larger judicial question of acquittal, clean acquittal or honorable acquittal etc. At the same time, the role of Screening Committee in such cases where the Court has acquitted the applicant has to be seen. Hon‟ble Supreme Court has dealt with this matter time and again and in The State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors. Vs. Bunty (supra) on 14.03.2019has held as under:- 14
OA-3065/2019 "9. Considering the nature of allegation in the case, it was a case of impersonation as a police officer and thereby committing the offence under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC.
It was a case of the serious kind, which involved moral turpitude and having not been granted the clean acquittal in the criminal case merely by the grant of benefit of the doubt, clouds cannot be said to be clear as to the antecedents of the respondent. Thus, the perception formed by the Screening Committee that he was unfit to be inducted in the disciplined police force was appropriate. In the aforesaid factual matrix, decision of Scrutiny Committee could not be said to be such which warranted judicial interference.
10. Learned Single Judge of the High Court in the factual matrix projected, has rightly relied upon the decision in Mehar Singh (supra), wherein this Court has observed as under:-
"35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in the public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even hand."15
OA-3065/2019
11. That apart, when we consider the decision of the three- Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh (supra) the Court observed:-
"38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee."
12. In Pradeep Kumar (supra) this Court has observed:-
"15. From the above details, we find that the Screening Committee examined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings for their acquittal and taken the decision. While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post. As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took the decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as per Guideline 2(A)(b) an object of such screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter police force. While so, the court cannot substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee."
13. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that in case of acquittal in a criminal case is based on the benefit of the doubt or any other technical reason. The employer can take into consideration all relevant facts to take an appropriate decision as to the fitness of an incumbent for appointment/continuance in service. The decision taken by the Screening Committee in the instant case could not have been faulted by the Division Bench."
16
OA-3065/2019
8. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar (supra) on 25.08.2021 once again dealt at length that the provisions of Standing Order No. 398/2010 specifically in relation to the role of the Screening Committee. It is held in paras-12, 13 & 14 as under:-
"12. Mehar Singh noted that Clause 3 of the Standing Order, which refers to the Screening Committee, comprises of senior police officers. This committee assesses candidates‟ (previously implicated for an offence, but against whom charges are terminated, for any reason), suitability for appointment. Clause 6 prescribes that candidates who faced charges involving serious offences or offences involving moral turpitude and who are later acquitted giving benefit of doubt or because the witnesses turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person shall not generally be considered suitable for government service. Each of such cases is to be considered by the Screening Committee manned by senior officers.
13. It is evident from a reading of the applicable Standing Order along with Annexure-A that in relation to certain offences, acquittal or exoneration of an accused candidate, per se would not entitle her or him to consideration. In this regard, in relation to offences listed in Annexure A inter alia, those who are accused of having committed offences under Sections 325-333; 363-373 and 379-462; would fall within the mischief of Clause 6. Upon an overall analysis of the Standing Order, this Court is of the opinion that an acquittal or discharge in a criminal proceeding would not per se enable the candidate to argue that the authorities can be compelled to select and appoint her or him. This Court, in this regard, held inter alia as follows:17
OA-3065/2019 "The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the con- duct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a po- lice force."
9. In the same judgment Hon‟ble Supreme Court also held that the Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. In Paras 26, 28, 29 & 30, the following has been held:-
"26. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment. This was emphasized by this court, in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission7 held as follows:
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion 18 OA-3065/2019 has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection."
28. Again, in Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya it was iterated that "The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate 19 OA-3065/2019 is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee."
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 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."
10. In a recent judgment in UOI &Ors. Vs. Methu Meda(supra) dated 06.10.2021 Hon‟ble Supreme Court has dealt with the aspect of honorable acquittal and 20 OA-3065/2019 the same has been viewed in relation to the role of the Screening Committee. Relevant paras are extracted below:-
"8. It is argued that merely making a disclosure of the criminal case in the attestation form is not sufficient. As per the Policy Guidelines dated 01.02.2012, in view of involvement of the respondent in heinous offences including the offences under Sections 327/347/364A IPC, he would not be entitled for appointment until honourably acquitted. Even though, the respondent has been provisionally selected vide letter dated 30.03.2012, issued by the Chairman of the Recruitment Board, but mere acquittal giving benefit of doubt, as the witnesses have turned hostile, would not make the candidate suitable for appointment. The impugned orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh are contrary to the law laid down in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others (2016)8 SCC 471, Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh (2013)7 SCC 685, State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 18 SCC 733, State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Love Kush Meena 2021(4) SCALE 634 and Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar 2021(9) SCALE
713. It is urged that acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive for suitability of the candidate for appointment. Thus, unless the respondent is honourably acquitted in a criminal case, it would not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post.
10. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, the question which arises in the present appeal is whether the decision of the Screening Committee rejecting the candidature of the respondent, when there was no allegation of malice against the Screening Committee and the respondentwrit petitioner had been acquitted of serious charges, inter alia, of kidnapping for ransom as some prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, ought to have been interfered with.
11. While addressing the question, as argued the meaning of expression „acquittal‟ is required to be looked into.21
OA-3065/2019 The expressions „honourable acquittal‟, „acquitted of blame‟ and „fully acquitted‟ are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code. It has been developed by judicial pronouncements. In the case of State of Assam & Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, (1972) 7 SLR 44, the effect of the word „honourably acquitted‟ has been considered in the context of the Assam Fundament Rules (FR) 54 (a) for entitlement of full pay and allowance if the employee is not dismissed. The Court has referred the judgment of Robert Stuart Wauchope vs. Emperor reported in (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168, in the context of expression „honourably acquitted‟, Lord Williams, J. observed as thus:
"The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the Appellant believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the magistrate. Further we decided that the Appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the Appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term "honourably acquitted". "
18. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, as per paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5, it is clear that the employer is having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment. Acquittal on technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even in case, truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made by 22 OA-3065/2019 the employee, still the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
20. In the aforesaid fact, guidance can further be taken from the judgment of Mehar Singh (supra), in paras 23, 34, 35, this Court observed, as thus:
23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such person's involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this Court as its object appears to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force."
11. From the above quoted judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court it is evident that the Screening Committee would be within its right to not recommend 23 OA-3065/2019 case of a candidate who was involved in criminal proceedings and acquitted by the competent Court after due consideration.
12. From the above, it is quite obvious that the Screening Committee considered all aspects taking into account the acquittal by the Court of AJM, Sonipat and the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as referred above in a catena of judgments and did not recommend his case. Accordingly his candidature was cancelled vide the impugned order dated 24.09.2019.
13. In view of the above mentioned, we are of the view that the SCN dated 31.05.2019 and the impugned order dated 24.09.2019 are not in violation of any laid down procedure/rules. We also do not find any infirmity or illegality in the action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the applicant.24
OA-3065/2019
14. The O.A. is thus devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das) Member (A) Chairman /vinita/