Delhi High Court
Nawab Khan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 20 April, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, V.K.Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 20.04.2012
+ W.P.(C) No.2260/2012 & CM No.4848/2012
NAWAB KHAN ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Sharma and Ms. Mamta Tandon, Advs.
For the Respondents : Ms. Ferida Satarwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2011 passed in OA 2562/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner had filed the said original application seeking the setting aside of the order dated 11.06.2011 whereby his candidature was cancelled after the same has been considered by the Screening Committee which has also given an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why the candidature should not be cancelled. The petitioner had also sought a declaration from the Tribunal that he W.P(C)2260/2012 Page 1 of 4 was entitled to be appointed as a Constable (Executive) (Male) in Delhi Police on the basis of recruitment held in the Year 2009.
2. The petitioner had applied for the said post of Constable (Executive) (Male) in Delhi Police in the recruitment held in the Year 2009 (phase-II). He was selected, subject to verification of character, antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. The petitioner had, in his application, disclosed that he has earlier been involved in the criminal case registered by virtue of FIR No.134/08 under Sections 323/341/324/354/326/307/34 IPC as also under Sections 3(i)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at P.S. Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. The petitioner, however, had been acquitted by the Court by an order dated 14.11.2008. Insofar as the offences under Sections 323/324/341 and 354 IPC are concerned, the acquittal was on the basis of a compromise entered into between the prosecutrix and the petitioner. As regards the other offences under Sections 326 and 307/34 IPC and under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the petitioner was acquitted on the ground that all the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and there was no witness to support the prosecution story.
3. The case of the petitioner was examined by the Screening Committee which included the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. After issuing the show cause notice to the applicant on 14.03.2011 as to why his candidature for the post of Constable W.P(C)2260/2012 Page 2 of 4 (Executive) in the Delhi Police should not be cancelled, the Screening Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not suitable for police service. Thereafter, the Appointing Authority, after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and on the basis of the recommendation made by the Screening Committee, by virtue of an order dated 11.06.2011 cancelled the candidature of the petitioner for the post of a Constable (Executive) (Male) in the Delhi Police with immediate effect.
4. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the said cancellation of candidature and had primarily placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Police & Others v. Sandeep Kumar: (2011) 4 SCC
644. In that decision itself, the Supreme Court had distinguished the case before it from other cases where serious offences were involved. The Supreme Court was of the view that since the offences alleged against the respondents therein were not serious offences like murder, dacoity and rape, a more lenient view could be taken in the matter. Therefore, there is a distinction which has to be kept in mind between grave and serious offences on the one hand and offences which are not of a very serious in nature, on the other. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the offences in which the petitioner was allegedly involved included not only the charge under Section 307, but, also the charge under Section 354 IPC, which is an offence of a grave nature involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the case of the W.P(C)2260/2012 Page 3 of 4 petitioner is clearly distinguishable from that of Sandeep Kumar (supra). We may also note that the acquittal of the petitioner insofar as the offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, was not on merits but was based on a compromise with the prosecutrix.
5. The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the distinction between the gravity of offences involved in the present case and that before the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra). The Tribunal has also correctly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Others v. Sushil Kumar: (1997) SCC [L&S] 492.
6. We see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal as it is in conformity with the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court as also of this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.
7. There shall be no orders as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K.JAIN, J APRIL 20, 2012 rb W.P(C)2260/2012 Page 4 of 4