Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ujjawal Rana vs Govt. Of Nctd on 14 May, 2025
1
Item No.67/C-4
O.A. No. 1083/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1083/2021
This the 14th day of May, 2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Ujjawal Rana
Seeking appointment as Warder,
Post Code No.37/13
Aged about 29 Years
S/o Sh. Brahm Prakash Rana
R/o 494, Pandit Mohalla,
Khera Kalan, Delhi-82
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
Through its Chairman
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92
3. Director General of Prisons
Prisons Headquarter,
Central Jail Tihar,
Janak Puri, New Delhi-64.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma)
2
Item No.67/C-4
O.A. No. 1083/2021
ORDER (ORAL)
Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) The Original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the AT Act 1985, challenging the order dated 01.04.2021 issued by Respondent No. 3.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was an aspirant for the post of Warder under post code 37/13 and had participated in the recruitment exercise conducted by the DSSSB. Upon being provisionally selected he was required to file the attestation form. Vide memorandum dated 19.07.2017, the applicant was directed to file an attestation form. Accordingly, on 22.08.2017, the applicant submitted the attestation form, in which he disclosed that FIR No. 631/2014 under Section 436/34 IPC, dated 12.08.2014, had been registered against him. He also disclosed that the said FIR was a cross case due to the criminal case: FIR No. 292/2014 at PS Bawana, Delhi under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC, dated 29.3.2014 got registered by the applicant and his family against the accussed persons.
3. The applicant informed that his sister had been facign dowry harrassment at the hand of her in-laws so much so that she had expired due to the said harrassment. He states that upon death of his sister the FIR No. 292/2014 under Sections 498A/304B/34 IPC dated 29th March 2014 was lodged against the husband and in-laws of the applicant's sister, and later a false FIR No. 631/2014 was filed by the in-laws of the applicant's sister against the applicant and his family.
3Item No.67/C-4 O.A. No. 1083/2021
4. Due to the pendency of these cases, at the relevant time, the candidature of the applicant, was kept in abeyance by the competent authority. However for some reason later, while the trial was still pending, the respondent decided to cancel his candidature vide order dated 01.04.2021, which is challenged in the present OA.
5. Learned counsel draws attention to the impugned order and submits that it records that the initial decision of the competent authority was to keep the candidature in abeyance until the outcome of the criminal cases. However, for reasons not disclosed in the impugned order, the competent authority later decided to cancel the candidature.
6. It is submitted that during the pendency of the present O.A., the trial concluded, and the competent trial court, vide judgment dated February 2023, acquitted the applicant.
7. Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the DSSSB, submits that the DSSSB is only a pro forma party and therefore are not contesting. On the other hand there is no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 3, although a reply has been filed. Relevant para of the reply filed by the respondent No. 3 is reads as under:-
"That on receiving CVR report it was decided that to keep the recruitment matter pending till the outcome of the case as charge sheet was already filed in the court.
Thereafter, no outcome of court case of the status of the Applicant is received to the Respondent No.3 from SHO Bawana after several reminders. That the Competent Authority of the Respondent No.3 declared him UNFIT on 15.03.2021 under the DoPT guidelines 4 Item No.67/C-4 O.A. No. 1083/2021 O.M. No. 18011/9(s)/78-Estt.B dated 2nd July 1982. The relevant Clause of the above said guidelines are reproduced herein below:
"3. Determination of suitability of a person for appointment to Government service.
Pre-enrolment verification, whether simple or detailed, is pre- requisite for appointment. It will be the responsibility of the appointing authority to satisfy itself about the identity and suitability of the candidate according to the prescribed criteria before making any appointment".
3.1 Criteria:
(A) While thee is no change in the guiding principles laid down in the Circular dated 7th February. 1947, referred to above specifically the following may be considered undesirable for employment under Government:
(a)...
(b) Those who have been charged with, or against whom there is substantial evidence of, participation in or association with any activity or programme which is aim at:
(i)....
(ii)...
(iii) Causing organized breach or defiance of law involving violence;
Copy of guideline O.M. No. 18011/9(s)/78-Estt.B dated 2nd July 1982 attached herewith and marked as Annexure R-4.
10. It is further stated that As per Judgment "Delhi Administration Vs Sushil Kumar" [1999(11) SCC 605], it is settled law that verification of character and antecedent is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the state cum disciplinary force. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced herein below:
"The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-
90. "Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected".5
Item No.67/C-4 O.A. No. 1083/2021 It was held by the Apex Court that:
"The view taken by the appointing authority in background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. It the actual result happened to be a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service"."
8. Thus the respondent no.3 has attempted to take refuge behind their right to verify the character antecedents of the candidate before offering appointment.
9. There is no denial to the aforesaid right of the employee to check the character and antecedents of the candidate, however each case requires to be seen in the light of its own facts and circumstances. As noted above the competent authority had decided to keep the candidature in abeyance, till pendency of the criminal cases.It is also not denied that the criminal cases are as a result of family dispute and the applicants stands acquitted.
10. In view of the above developments and the acquittal of the applicant, the challenge to the impugned order requires consideration. Despite the above, Respondent No. 3 kept the candidature in abeyance without clearly stating the circumstances, and the impugned order is neither a reasoned one.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded to Respondent No. 3 (competent authority) for fresh 6 Item No.67/C-4 O.A. No. 1083/2021 consideration, in light of the applicant's acquittal, and for passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
12. The present OA is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/arti/