Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dharam Veer Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 November, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 164/2010 New Delhi, this the 25th day of November, 2010 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE MR. L.K.JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Dharam Veer Singh S/o Shri Sube Singh, R/o Village Jogawar, P.O. Bhannot Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar, Rajasthan Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Shyam Babu) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi, Through its Chief Secretary, Players Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 2. The Commissioner of Police-Delhi, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment, New Police Line (NPL) Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Sumedha Sharma) ORDER
Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) The Applicant is before us in this second round of litigation challenging the order dated 17.06.2009, by which his candidature for the post of Constable in Delhi Police has been rejected on the ground that he has been involved in two criminal cases, from which it appears that he is a quarrelsome and violent person and, therefore, unsuitable for Delhi Police. He is also assailing the order dated 31.08.2009 by which his representation against the order dated 17.06.2009 has been rejected.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued in the year 2006 to fill up the vacancies for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. The Applicant, Dharam Veer Singh, applied for the post under the OBC category. He was successful in physical endurance and measurement test, written test, interview and medical test and was declared provisionally selected. His selection was subject to the verification of his character and antecedents. The verification of the character and antecedents of the Applicant revealed that he was involved in two criminal cases in FIR number 131/1999 under Section 454 and 380 of the IPC and FIR number 145/2004 under Section 147, 323 and 451 of the IPC. The Applicant was acquitted in the criminal case in FIR number 131/1999 by judgement dated 17.03.2001 by giving him benefit of Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the criminal case in FIR number 145/2004 also the Applicant was acquitted by judgement dated 01.12.2006 as both the parties had compromised in the matter. He was given the benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, mentioning therein that the conviction will not be a disqualification for the Applicant. The judgement dated 17.03.2001 has been reproduced below:
Present APP, Accused persons along their advocate. The accused persons have admitted the offence under section 147, 323 IPC by filing an application for the same the accused persons are witnesses themselves.
The infructuous petition has been perused. The accused persons have admitted their offence under section 147, 323 I.P.C. levelled against them and on the basis of admitting the offence the accused persons Sube Singh, Lal Singh, Kanwar Singh sons of Kunja Ram and Rakesh, Dharamvir sons of Sube Singh, caste JAT R/o Jogabad Mundwar, have been convicted under section 147 and 323 I.P.C. After perusing the petition and documents on record the proceedings pending against the accused persons are being disposed of and they are hereby warned that the accused persons will not repeat the said offence. The accused will deposit the penalty amount of Rs.500/- @ Rs.100/- each. The bail bond and surety bond for producing the accused persons in the court are hereby rejected.
The accused persons have produced a receipt No.10/389 dated 17.3.2001 for an amount of Rs.500/- in the court. The case file be consigned to record room. In the judgement dated 01.12.2006, the following order was passed:
Therefore, the accused persons Sube Singh, Santra Devi, Dharamvir, Vidya Devi, Santosh, Sawairam, all are discharged from the offence under section 197 IPC levelled against them as per the provisions of section 3 of Cr.P.C. They are also being discharged from the offence of Section 451, 323, 341 IPC. As per provisions of section 12 Probation Act, an order in the interest of justice is being passed that no adverse effect of any kind of the present order would be put on the future and social services of Dharamvir. The Applicant did not make a mention of the criminal cases against him in the application form for the post of Constable, but in the attestation form meant for verification of character and antecedents he disclosed that he had been acquitted in the above mentioned criminal cases. The said attestation form had been filled up on 06.12.2006 and later on 04.06.2007 and 18.06.2007 the Applicant also submitted copies of the FIRs and judgements of the Court. On 25.07.2007 the Applicant was given a notice to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Constable in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. The Applicant replied to the notice, inter alia, stating as follows:
g. That from the perusal of the judgments, it will be revealed that in criminal case FIR No. 131/99, I was acquitted on 17.3.2001 after having been given the benefit of doubt under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. In criminal case FIR No. 145/2004, I was acquitted on the ground of compromise between both the parties and was acquitted under section 147 by giving benefit of doubt to me under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act vide order dated 1.12.2006 by the Honble Court. It was specifically mentioned by the Honble Court that the judgement will not adversely affect my future career. However, by order dated 20.08.2007 the candidature of the Applicant for the post of Constable in Delhi Police was cancelled. The Applicant preferred a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi but it did not find favour with the latter. The Applicant thereafter approached this Tribunal in OA number 2083/2008 challenging the order dated 20.08.2007. In the judgement dated 21.04.2009 this Tribunal gave the following directions to the Respondents:
8. Mrs. Renu George submits that when the Administration found that the Applicant was involved in two criminal cases, the case has to be dealt with differently, and the suppression of details should have been taken as a deliberate act, and disqualification was appropriate. Therefore, we may go to the facts. The only difference as between the Dhaval Singhs case (supra) and the present applicant appears to be that Dhaval Singh had disclosed the details before the criminal case had come to a conclusion, but as far as the Applicant is concerned, he had been acquitted well before the application for appointment was presented. In other words, Dhaval Singh had concealed the details even when the matter was pending before the criminal court but nevertheless the Supreme Court had taken a realistic view whereby his conduct of disclosure, before a verification, was found as acceptable. Here also, before the actual verification, details had been furnished.
9. Taking notice of the situation of the Applicant as a whole, we are inclined to follow the Supreme Courts reasoning and judgement in Dhaval Singhs case. Since the Applicant had disclosed the details at the time of attestation, we think he need not be subjected to a harsh treatment. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside. The applicants case has to be reconsidered as if he has filed an application, which is valid, acceptable and to be noticed subject to his eligibility.
10. Consequential orders are to be passed within a period of two months from today. MA 1521/2008 stands disposed of as of no consequence. We make no order as to costs. The impugned orders in this OA have been passed in consequence of the directions of this Tribunal as quoted above.
3. Sections 3, 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 have been extracted below:
3. Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 379 or section 380 or section 381 or section 404 or section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or any offence punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with fine, or with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or any other law, and no previous conviction is proved against him and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, and the character of the offender, it is expedient so to do, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him to any punishment or releasing him on probation of good conduct under Section 4 release him after due admonition.
Explanation For the purposes of this section, previous conviction against a person shall include any previous order made against him under this section or section 4. 4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct -
(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interest of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being the learned Single Judge than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned. 12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under Section 4 is subsequently sentenced or the original offence.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant would contend that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment has passed the impugned order by totally ignoring the observations of this Tribunal in the judgement dated 21.04.2009 in as much as the contents of the two FIRs had been taken into account again for holding the Applicant to be unsuitable for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. It was argued that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment had himself observed that:
You had applied for the post of Constable (Exe) Male in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2006 and selected provisionally against Roll No. 421005, subject to verification of your character & antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. On receipt of your character and antecedents report from DM/Alwar (Raj.), it was found that you were involved in 02 criminal cases FIR No. 131/99 U/S 454/380 IPC & FIR No. 145/04 U/S 143/323/341/451/379 IPC registered at Police Station Mundawar (Raj.). Later on, the above-said criminal cases were decided by the Honble Courts. In case FIR No. 131/99 U/S 454/380 IPC you were acquitted on 17.03.2001 by given benefit of doubt U/S 3 Probation of Offenders Act and in criminal case FIR No. 145/04 U/S 147/323/451 IPC, you were acquitted of charge U/s 451/323/341 IPC as both the parties had compromised the matter and acquitted u/s 147 IPC by giving benefit u/s 12 of Probation of Offenders Act vide order dated 01.12.2006 by the Honble Court. (emphasis added) It was argued that the competent authority could not have found the Applicant unsuitable for Delhi Police after itself noting that there would be no adverse impact on the Applicant. He would contend that in view of this the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Police were not maintainable, as these were totally arbitrary. The learned counsel would further contend that the Tribunal had observed in the judgement dated 21.04.2009 that the Applicant should not be subjected to harsh treatment in view of the fact that he had himself disclosed the details of the criminal cases at the time of filling the attestation form.
5. The learned counsel for the Respondents would only contend that the candidature of the Applicant has rightly been cancelled because he had concealed the fact of his involvement in the criminal cases in spite of the fact that it had been clearly mentioned in the application form that such concealment could be a ground for disqualification. This is the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the Respondents.
6. It is not possible to agree with the arguments of the Respondents in view of the fact that the candidature of the Applicant has not been cancelled by the impugned order dated 17.06.2009 on the ground of concealment of the fact of involvement in two criminal cases. The candidature has been cancelled on the ground that the criminal cases would reveal that the Applicant is a person who is in the habit of picking up a quarrel and resorting to violence. The Respondents failed to appreciate that by virtue of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 no adverse consequences of the criminal cases would follow. The Applicant would not suffer any disqualification by virtue of the above cited provision of law.
7. In the light of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 17.06.2009 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment and the order dated 31.08.2009 are not maintainable. The impugned orders are, therefore, quashed and set aside. Since the Applicant has cleared all the tests required for the post of Constable in Delhi Police and considering his case as if there was no criminal case against him, the candidature of the Applicant can not be cancelled. The Respondents are directed to appoint the Applicant to the post of Head Constable in Delhi Police along with others of the batch for which he had competed, without, however, giving him the benefit of back wages. He would be entitled to count his seniority from the date the person immediately below him in the merit list of the Constables for the selection of the year 2006, which would count for the purpose of increment. These directions would be complied with within eight weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
( L.K. Joshi ) ( V.K. Bali )
Vice Chairman (A) Chairman
/dkm/