Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deepak Yadav vs Home Affairs on 30 January, 2025
1
OA No. 131/2025
Item No. 26 (C-4)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
O.A. No. 131/2025
This the 30th day of January, 2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath , Member (A)
Deepak Yadav
Age 29 years
S/o Shri Vijay Pal,
R/o Village Phideri, P.O. Majra Sheoraj, Tehsil &Distt.
Rewari, Haryana-123401
..Applicant
(By Advocates:Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road, Near Jantar Mantar,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Addl. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-
110009
4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Recruitment, New
Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hilal Haider with Ms. Neha Tiwari)
2
OA No. 131/2025
Item No. 26 (C-4)
O R D E R(Oral)
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J) The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
"In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
(1) To set aside the impugned order at 12.04.2024 and 16.12.2024 and to further direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.
and/or Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant."
2. The applicant is an aspirant for the post of Constable (Exe.)--Male in the Delhi Police. He applied pursuant to the advertisement notification issued by the respondents and participated in the said examination with Roll No. 2215082520. The applicant was provisionally selected. However, his candidature has been cancelled.
3. The counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of filling up the attestation form the applicant had duly informed the respondents of the criminal case, FIR No. 489/2019 under Sections 279, 336, 427 of the IPC in the district of Rewari, Haryana against him. 3 OA No. 131/2025 Item No. 26 (C-4)
4. In the said FIR, the Trial Court had convicted the applicant and sentenced him to imprisonment for three months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Subsequently, vide an order dated 22.07.2024, the said Trial Court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment. The order passed by the learned Trial court was challenged by the applicant before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADJ) at Rewari, Haryana vide CRA/65/2024. The same came to the decided on 09.10.2024. The decision in the appeal went in favor of the applicant and benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was granted to the applicant.
The respondents in the meantime, had issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 12.04.2024, calling him to show cause as to why his candidature may not be cancelled due to his involvement in the said criminal case. The applicant in response to the said show cause notice informed the respondents of the pending appeal also.
4. Vide application dated 18.10.2024, the applicant had submitted the final order passed by the learned Sessions Court in appeal dated 09.10.2024, requesting 4 OA No. 131/2025 Item No. 26 (C-4) the respondents/Screening Committee to take note of the same and to consider his candidature.
5. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the ADJ while deciding the said appeal has granted him the benefit of Sections 3 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The following observations have been made by the Learned ADJ:-
"8. After having hearing this court has come to conclusion that the complaint in this case was filed on. 17.09.2019. The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months along with line of Rs. 1000 under Section 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one month along with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 336 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of three months alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/-for the commission of offence punishable under Section 427 IPC. This Court has gone through the order on quantum of sentence passed by learned trial court. However, learned trial court has not given any finding with regard to a fact as to why the appellant was not entitled for probation. It is clearly mentioned that the appellant has been selected in Delhi Police for the post of constable. He is not previous convict. It is also not mentioned that appellant has ever misused concession of bail granted by the court during trial. Learned trial court has not considered the gravity of offence, character, antecedents of the offender as well the appellant is entitled to be referent probations of good conduct or not. FIR pertains to the year 2019 and is not brought to the notice of the court that thereafter the appellant/convict was involved in any other criminal case. In these circumstances keeping in view Section 3 and 12 of 5 OA No. 131/2025 Item No. 26 (C-4) the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section 360 Cr.P.C., 1973 when trial court has not consulted age, character and antecedents of the offenders and passed an order mechanically. The appellant/convict is entitled to benefit of probation Consequently, order of sentence dated 24.07.2024 is hereby married. The appellant/convict is directed to be released on probation The probation granted to the appellant/convict would not affect his service career in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble High Court in Salil Khana Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh 2014(1) RCR (Crinn.1) 857 and Darshan Singh Vs. Raj Singh 2020(1)
9. Consequently, appeal is dismissed and the sentence passed by learned trial court is hereby modilied, appellant/convict be released on probation on presentation of probation bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surely of the like amount for a period of six months. During this period, he will not indulge it any criminal activity. He would appear and receive the sentence awarded by the learned trial court as and when called upon by the trial court in case of breach of any conditions of the probation bonds. The amount of line, which has already been deposited by the appellant/convict, is converted into costs of proceedings. File of the appeal be consigned to the records after compliance."
Counsel submits that a specific order was passed by the Sessions Court, upon being informed that the applicant had been selected for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. Selection of the applicant was the pursuasive factor for the Ld. Appellate court to grant 6 OA No. 131/2025 Item No. 26 (C-4) the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Counsel therefore submits that in the above circumstances, it was incumbent upon the respondents to decide the SCN, considering the candidature of the applicant in all aspects.
6. We had the opportunity to look at the impugned order dated 16.12.2024, cancelling the candidature of the applicant. Although, the order passed in the Criminal appeal has been referred to therein, however, we find no comments/consideration/application of mind by the Screening Committee on the same.
7. The issue before us has been adjudicated in a number of cases by the Tribunal, the High Court and even by the Apex Court. For our purpose today the law can be summed up by stating that the respondents do indeed have a right to verify the character and antecedents of the applicant before issuing the final appointment order and also that mere acquittal in the criminal case would not entail a claim for suo moto appointment. At the same time, the matter needs careful consideration by the respondents, before denying a person the right to appointment for all times to come. Such a view cannot be taken lightly or 7 OA No. 131/2025 Item No. 26 (C-4) perfunctorily, and would only be justified after a very thorough consideration of all the attendant circumstances of the case and the order of acquittal. Besides, there is also the need for extreme caution in this respect so that the quasi-judicial authorities do not overstep their legitimate domain and give a finding over and above the findings recorded by a Trial Court. While dealing with such cases, discrimination also has been held to be an important ground.
8 We have already noted that the screening committee has not adequately considered order of the Criminal Appeal Court. The screening committee would be better advised to look at the standing orders of Delhi Police concerning the benefit of probation of Offenders Act to the candidates. Given the aforesaid, in the particular facts of this case, we deem it appropriate that the matter be remanded to the Screening Committee to reconsider, the candidature of the applicant in the light of the decisions of the Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, dated 09.10.2024. The Screening committee shall complete the exercise within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the respondents, find the applicant suitable for the said post, he will be 8 OA No. 131/2025 Item No. 26 (C-4) considered as per his merit, at par with his batch mates as per rules.
8. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ss/