Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahipal Singh Jat (Roll No.71151) vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 April, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.2109/2011 Tuesday, this the 1st April, 2013 Honble Shri George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Mahipal Singh Jat (Roll No.71151) Recruit SI (Executive) in Delhi Police, S/o Shri Jhaber Mal Jat R/o VPO: Malakali Via Ringas, Tehsil: Shrimadhopur, District: Sikar, Rajasthan. Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Recruitment), New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. ... Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. Renu George) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri G George Paracken:
Applicant in this case was a candidate for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) Male in Delhi Police-2009 (Phase-I). He was selected provisionally subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. On receipt of his character antecedents report, it was revealed that he was involved in a criminal case FIR No.90/2003 dated 08.04.2003 u/s 143/323 IP, PS Ringas, Rajasthan and FIR No.39/2004 dated 06.02.2004 u/s 323/341/326/147 IPC, PS Ringas, Rajasthan. According to the Respondents, the Screening Committee consisting of high ranking officers of the Delhi Police considered the facts of the case, judgment of the criminal court, gravity of the offence and the involvement of the Applicant in them. According to said Committee, they have also kept in view the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 4.10.1996 in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 arising out of SLP ( C) No.5340 of 1996 DAD Vs. Sushil Kumar and came to the prima facie conclusion that both the cases ended in compromise between the parties and Applicants involvement in those cases shows his violent nature. According to them, it also shows his tendency to commit crime without fear of laws or respect of law and such type of attitude renders him unsuitable for appointment in a law enforcing agency and in a disciplined force like Delhi Police. He was, therefore, vide impugned Annexure A-1 letter dated 10.11.2010, called upon to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) Male in Delhi Police should not be cancelled for the aforesaid reasons. He was also given time to submit his reply.
2. According to the Annexure A-2 impugned order dated 01.02.2011, the Applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice and it was considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment, NPL, Delhi and held that on the basis of the report submitted by the Screening Committee duly constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and in view of all the circumstances stated in the show cause notice, he was not found suitable for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) Male in Delhi Police and his candidature for the said post was cancelled with immediate effect.
3. The Applicant challenged the aforesaid show cause notice as well as the order of cancellation of his candidature in this OA, on various grounds. The respondents have also filed their reply justifying their stand.
4. At the outset, we have enquired from the learned counsel for the Respondents, Mrs. Renu George whether the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the Applicant was actually considered by the Screening Committee before the impugned Annexure A-2 letter dated 01.02.2011 canceling his candidature was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment Cell, NPL, Delhi. The Respondents counsel has produced the official record in this connection. We have perused the same along with her. Nowhere, we find that the reply to the show cause notice was placed before the Screening Committee. It was, in fact, considered only by the Deputy Commissioner of Police who decided to cancel the candidature of the Applicant. It is quite strange to see that when the responsibility to consider the suitability of candidates who are alleged to have been involved in criminal cases has been entrusted by the Commissioner of Police to a Screening Committee consisting of high level officials including an Additional Commissioner of Police, the actual decisions to cancel the candidatures of persons are taken by a Deputy Commissioner of Police who is comparatively a lower authority. The very purpose of issuing a show cause notice to such candidates is to hear them before any final decision regarding their suitability in enrolling in Delhi Police is taken and it is based on the sound principles of natural justice. In our considered view, the Respondents have followed the said principle in this case as a ritual and as an empty formality. It is a well settled principle that right of consideration is a fundamental right and such considerations are meaningful only when the competent authority considers. The consideration made by an incompetent authority is not proper consideration. We, therefore, cannot accept the impugned order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment, NPL, Delhi canceling the candidature of the Applicant. The said order is in total violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, it is quashed and set aside.
5. In the result, we remit the case to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment, NPL, Delhi with the direction to him to place the show cause notice and the reply given by the Applicant before the Screening Committee to take appropriate independent and reasoned decision in the matter within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision so taken shall also be communicated to the Applicant.
6. We also make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and if the decision of the Respondents goes against the interest of the Applicant, he will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with the rules, if so advised.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
( SHEKHAR AGARWAL ) ( G GEORGE PARACKEN )
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh