Delhi High Court
Mintu Mistri vs Uoi And Ors on 20 September, 2012
Author: Gita Mittal
Bench: Gita Mittal, J.R. Midha
11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1530/2012
% Date of decision: 20th September, 2012
MINTU MISTRI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. S.N. Kaul, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 6016/2010
1. The writ petitioner has challenged the letter dated 18 th October, 2011 whereby the respondents held that the petitioner was not found suitable for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in the CISF and withdrew the offer of appointment dated 23rd June, 2011 issued to him.
The facts giving rise to the present writ petition to the extent necessary are briefly noted hereafter.
2. The petitioner applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2010 for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Central Police Force (CPF). He successfully undertook the written examination held on 16th May, 2010 and also qualified the Physical WP(C)No.1530/2012 Page 1 of 7 Endurance Test (PET) and the medical examination on 14 th October, 2010. On successful completion of the selection process, the petitioner was issued a provisional offer of appointment dated 23rd June, 2011 to join the said post in the National Industrial Security Academy (NISA) at Hyderabad. At this stage, on the character and antecedent verification conducted by the respondents, it was found that he had been involved in a criminal case arising out of FIR No.132/05 dated 13th June, 2005 registered by the Police Station Hansukhali under Sections 147/148/149/448/323 & 506 of the IPC. The respondents also found that he was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court Ramaghat, Nadia, West Bengal on 12th April, 2011. Therefore, it was administratively decided not to allow the petitioner to join the post resulting in issuance of the impugned letter dated 18th October, 2011 withdrawing the provisional letter of appointment. The petitioner has assailed the same by way of the present writ petition.
3. Before this court, Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to the Policy/Guidelines dated 1st February, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which guide consideration of cases of candidates involved in criminal cases for appointment in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). It is further stated that the petitioner‟s case was examined by the Standing Screening Committee in terms of the said policy/guidelines on 23rd February, 2012 which came to be rejected.
WP(C)No.1530/2012 Page 2 of 74. The adjudication of the case of the petitioner largely turns on the construction of the judgment dated 12th April, 2011 whereby the petitioner was acquitted in the context of the relevant provisions of the Policy/Guidelines dated 1st February, 2012. In order to appreciate the same, relevant extract thereof deserves to be extracted which reads as follows:-
"North Block, New Delhi February 1st, 2012 Subject : Policy Guidelines for Considering cases of candidates for appointment in CAPFs - pendency of criminal case against candidates - the effect of:
xxx
2. Accordingly, the matter has been considered in this Ministry in consultation with CAPFs, and it has been decided as follows:-
III. The candidate will not be considered for recruitment if :
a) Such involvement/case/arrest is concerned with an offence mentioned in Annexure -
A. Provided further that the candidate shall not be debarred if he/she has been finally acquitted/discharged by a court, whether an appeal is pending or not against such acquittal.
V. Notwithstanding the provisions of 3(III) above, such candidates against whom chargesheet in a criminal case has been filed in the court and the charges fall in the WP(C)No.1530/2012 Page 3 of 7 category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though later on acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or acquitted for the reasons that the witness have turned hostile due to fear or reprisal by the accused persons(s), he/she will generally not be considered suitable for appointment in the CAPF. The details of crimes which are serious offences or involve moral turpitude are at Annexure 'A'. However, cases in which the criminal court, while acquitting, has categorically mentioned that the criminal case would not be a bar on appointment in Government Services, the candidate shall be considered for appointment in the concerned CAPF."
5. The reading of the guidelines would thus show that in case of candidate who has been finally acquitted or discharged by a court, then in the following two contingencies, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the proviso thereto:-
(i) if the acquittal is on account of extension of benefit of doubt.
(ii) if the acquittal rests on witnesses who have turned hostile due to fear or reprisal.
6. A reading of the judgment dated 12th April, 2011 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class acquitted the petitioner would show that the complainant, on whose statement the prosecution was based, had not given any deposition in favour of the prosecution. In her testimony, the complainant stated that she did not know anything about the alleged incident and she has no grievance against the accused persons. The other three prosecution witnesses testified to the same effect. The Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case to the best judicial satisfaction of this court. In fact, the narration of the WP(C)No.1530/2012 Page 4 of 7 testimony of the witnesses in court as noticed above would show that in fact it was a case of no evidence and the Magistrate had so concluded. However, we find that while recording the order, the Magistrate had additionally noted that the accused persons deserve acquittal under the "canopy of benefit of doubt". Given the fact that there was no evidence at all before the Judicial Magistrate, the accused persons were entitled to acquittal for the reason that no case against them had been made at all. No doubt could have been nurtured in the mind of the learned judge. Therefore, the observation that the accused persons deserve to be acquitted under the "canopy of benefit of doubt" is really otiose and meaningless. The sum and substance of the said order rests on the fact that there was no evidence at all before the learned judge.
7. It has been pointed out by Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondents that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the respondents have denied him the benefit available under the proviso to the guidelines 2(iii) for the reason that the words „benefit of doubt‟ featured in that order. As observed above, the same are meaningless and of no consequence.
8. There is nothing in the order of the learned judge, brought on record by the respondents, which would manifest any element of fear or reprisal on the part of the witnesses who had appeared before the learned judge. We certainly cannot so hold when no material to this effect has been placed either before the learned Magistrate or before us.
WP(C)No.1530/2012 Page 5 of 79. At this stage, we also find that during the course of character and antecedent verification conducted by the respondents, the SHO/PS Incharge of the Police Station Hansukhali within whose jurisdiction the petitioner was residing has certified that on a verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner, he had not found anything adverse either politically or otherwise recorded in the police station and that the police had no objection at all to his appointment in the CISF.
10. In view of the above, it would appear that the order dated 18th October, 2011 has been passed on a misconception and on an erroneous reading of the judgment dated 12th April, 2011 and contrary to the guidelines aforenoticed. The withdrawal of the provisional offer of appointment was therefore, contrary to law.
11. The petitioner had qualified the selection process and was found eligible for the appointment.
12. We are informed by Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondents, on the instructions of Mr. Abdul Salam, Assistant Commandant of the CISF, that the course to which the petitioner‟s provisional offer of appointment letter dated 23rd June, 2011 is concerned, the training of that batch commenced on 1 st August, 2011 and came to an end on 1st September, 2012 and its passing out parade is also over.
In this background, the petitioner cannot undertake the training with this batch.
13. Mr. Ankur Chhiber, learned counsel for the respondents has further informed that the current recruitment process is on and WP(C)No.1530/2012 Page 6 of 7 training of the next group is to commence on 26th November, 2012 and that the petitioner can join the training in this batch.
14. In view of the above discussion, we direct as follows:-
(i) The communication dated 18th October, 2011 issued by the respondents withdrawing the provisional offer of appointment is hereby set aside and quashed.
(ii) The respondents shall ensure that the petitioner is permitted to undertake the training which is to commence on 26 th November, 2012 as per the prescribed procedure.
(iii) The respondents shall issue a fresh communication in writing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today informing him of the date and place to which he has to report for training.
(iv) The petitioner shall be given reasonable joining time for the same.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs.
Dasti to parties.
GITA MITTAL, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
SEPTEMBER 20, 2012
aj
WP(C)No.1530/2012 Page 7 of 7