Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Rameshwar Dayal vs Commissioner Of Police on 4 March, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-1982/2012
Reserved on: 27.02.2013.
Pronounced on:04.03.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. Rameshwar Dayal,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Meena,
R/o V.P.O. Kaneti, Tehsil Rajgarh,
District Awar, Rajasthan-30141. . Applicant
(through Sh. Ajesh Luthra, Advocate)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Establishment)
Police Headquarters,
IP Estate, New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. B.N.P. Pathak, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) This O.A. has been filed against denial of appointment to the applicant in Delhi Police.
2. Facts of the case are that the applicant had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police in the year 2009. The applicant cleared the test and was provisionally selected to the said post subject to verification of character and antecedents. On 16.01.2011 he was issued a show cause notice as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) -2009 should not be cancelled on account of his involvement in two criminal cases which were as follows:-
1. FIR No.202/2002 u/s 376 IPC PS. Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan dated 27.7.2002.
2. FIR No. 134/2010 u/s 30413/406/201 IPC PS. Mahila Thana, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan 24.09.2010.
3. He gave a representation against the show cause notice. His case was considered by the Screening Committee constituted for this purpose and thereafter his candidature was terminated vide order dated 15.03.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed this O.A. before us.
4. The applicant has stated that he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid two cases and that he has been acquitted in both of them. His contention is that he cannot be denied appointment only on the basis of FIR registered against him. He has further stated that it is wrong to say that his acquittal in FIR of 202/2002 was not a case of honourable acquittal because the trial Court has recorded a judicial finding after carefully analyzing the evidence adduced before it which the Court had found to be insufficient for conviction. His argument is that once sufficient evidence is not available to prove the charge the acquittal is honourable for all purposes. He has pointed out the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses that were produced before the trial Court including the complainant and the victim Km. Sunita. According to the applicant Ms. Sunita had stated before the trial Court that some one had embraced her from the back on the day of incident and on her shouting the boy had left and run away. Thus, the victim herself has denied commitment of rape and had also not identified the applicant as the person who had embraced her from the back. According to him even the medical evidence did not establish commitment of rape as it was stated by the doctor that the hymen of the victim was intact and there were no injury marks. The applicant has stated that the respondents themselves have not discussed the other case FIR No. 134/2010 and therefore he believes that the same has not been held to be adverse. Further he has stated that in the same recruitment the Screening Committee had cleared the case of a candidate, namely, Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash (Roll No. 811643) who was also involved in a criminal case u/s 376, 363, 366, 506, 34 IPC. Therefore, denial of appointment to the applicant was unjust.
5. The respondents in their reply have not disputed the facts of the case. They have stated that the candidature of the applicant was cancelled on account of his involvement in a rape case. According to them, the case of the applicant had been duly considered by the Screening Committee and after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case the Committee came to the conclusion that applicants acquittal in FIR No.202/2002 cannot be said to be honourable acquittal. According to the respondents since the applicant was involved in a heinous crime like rape he is unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment dated 10.02.2012 of the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another Vs. Daulat Ram [(WP(C)-734/2010]. Para-1, which is relevant, is reproduced here:-
1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby OA No. 1514/2011 filed by the respondent was allowed. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:
On 11.12.2009 the respondent applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. He appeared in the written test and was provisionally selected for the aforesaid post. Despite his having been selected and found physically fit no appointment letter was issued to him for the reason that he had been involved in a criminal case registered vide FIR No. 351/2007 PS Laxman Garh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) under Sections 323/341/324/325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code which had resulted in acquittal on 12.2.2009, based on a compromise. A show-cause notice was issued to him as to why his candidature be not cancelled. In his reply, the respondent clarified that complete details of his having been involved in the criminal case had been disclosed by him in the application form as well as in the attestation form. The explanation given by him, however, was not found satisfactory and his candidature was cancelled on 22.3.2011. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police & Others v. Sandeep Kumar: (2011) 4 SCC 644 quashed the cancellation of the candidature of the respondent and directed the petitioner to consider him for the post of Constable (Executive). In the aforesaid case after discussing facts, circumstances and judgments cited in different cases such as Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others Vs. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605, Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., (WP(C) No. 5782/2011) decided on 11.08.2011, Honble Supreme Court decisions in Civil Appeal No. 7106/2011 Ram Kumar Vs. State of UP and Ors. decided on 19.08.2011 and in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003(3) SCC 437. The Honble High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed against the order of this Tribunal allowing the candidature of the applicant in OA-1514/2011.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment dated 20.12.2011 of Honble High Court of Delhi in WP(C)-6518/2011 (Commissioner of Police Vs. Sh. Ranvir Singh) in which the Screening Committee denied appointment in Delhi Police to a candidate involved in a case u/s 332/353/186/285/506 read with 34 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act. While rejecting the claim of the candidate, the Honble High Court observed as follows:-
10. We may in this regard also notice that the Policy For Deciding Cases of Candidates Provisionally Selected in Delhi Police, Involved in Criminal Cases (Facing Trial or Acquitted) has been framed vide Standing Order No.398/2010 dated 23.11.2010. The said Policy also provides reference of such candidates to the Screening Committee to assess suitability for appointment; once the petitioner itself is not rejecting the candidature merely on the ground of involvement in a criminal case and notwithstanding such involvement assessing the suitability it cannot be denied the said right. The petitioner Delhi Police is often criticized for its force. The popular public conception of the men in Police uniform being the biggest Gundas cannot be ignored. In the light thereof, a candidate whom the experts in the Screening Committee have found unfit for serving in the police cannot be thrust on the police and the same if done may not only instill a false feeling of bravado and confidence in respondent, detrimental to his functioning in the police but may also affect the morale of the police department. No undue weightage can be given to the factum of the respondent being acquitted of the criminal charge. Just like such acquittal has been held not to impact the departmental inquiry proceedings on the same charge, for the reason of test of proof being different in the two proceedings, similarly in the matter of employment also, an acquittal of a criminal charge cannot be allowed to wash away the said charge or to place a person in the same position as if never had been charged.
11. The petitioner was thus fully entitled to consider the factum of the charge against the respondent even though ultimately acquitted thereof in assessing suitability of the respondent for induction in the police force. Else no error is found in the said assessment capable of interference.
12. The Tribunal in the impugned order has blindly followed the dicta in Sandeep Kumar and other similar judgments in which no assessment of suitability had been done by the Screening Committee. The facts of the present case do not allow applicability of the ratio of the said judgment.
13. The petition therefore succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 25.05.2011 of the Tribunal is set aside / quashed and the orders of the petitioner rejecting the candidature of the respondent for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) Male are upheld. No order as to costs. Review filed against this order was also dismissed.
9. We have considered the above two citations and the position that emerges is that facts and circumstances of each case will have to be seen before taking a decision regarding candidature of the persons involved in criminal cases. Mere acquittal may not be sufficient for appointment. If this was so there would have been no need for a Screening Committee and every person acquitted would have to be appointed. It is well established principle of law that for conviction in a criminal case the charge has to be proved against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, for considering appointments particularly in sensitive posts like Delhi Police a reasonable suspicion of a candidates involvement in heinous crime in our considered opinion would be sufficient for denial of appointment.
10. We have perused the judgment dated 27.11.2002 delivered by the Learned Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in case No. 25/2002 (State Vs. Rameshwar) u/s 376 IPC. The facts of this criminal case are in brief given in the first para of the judgment, which reads as follows:-
In brief the facts of the case are that on 27.07.2002 complainant Chottey Lal with the victim Sunita had gone to the Police Station Rajgarh and had given report contents of which are:
That his brothers daughter Sunita had gone for toilet in fields on 26.07.2002 at 2.00 pm in noon and Rameshwar @ Bhapu came from behind and caught hold of Sunita from the back and inserted his penis into the place of urine of Sunita, Sunita shouted he threatened her by showing knife and threaten her to kill, in the mean time Lal Ji, and Lalji came and they had caught Bhapu. The complainant was given information of the incident by his sister in law and Sunita. On the complaint case No. 202/02 under section 376 IPC has been registered and the investigation is started after the investigation against the accused charge sheet under section 376 IPC has been filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajgarh. It is noticed from the judgment that most of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant Chottey lal, PW-I and victim Ms. Sunita, PW-3 had turned hostile. However, PW-6 Dr. Anita Naruka had stated that while there were no injury marks on the secret parts of Sunita and while her hymen was intact, her vagina was torn down by 1 cm from the left side. PW-9 Mahinder Singh who was IO in the case had stated that the victims statement had been recorded u/s 361 Cr.P.C. and the accused Rameshwar had been arrested. It has also come out in the statements of other witnesses that under wear and lungi of the accused, lehenga of the victim, bangles etc. were seized from the spot.
11. From the above, it does appear that the respondents had not erred in coming to conclusion that the case could not be proved in the Court beyond reasonable doubt on account of key witnesses turning hostile.
12. On the basis of above, we come to the conclusion that the respondents had not erred in denying appointment to the accused. We, therefore, find no merit in this O.A. and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/