Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ramanuj Upadhyay S/O Mahendra Nath ... vs Commissioner Of Police on 7 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.2591 of 2011 Judgment reserved on : 10th February, 2012 Pronounced on : 7th March, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Ramanuj Upadhyay S/o Mahendra Nath Upadhyay, R/o Village & Post Ram Nagar, Kadama Road, Hazari Bagh, Jharkhand. Applicant ( By Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate ) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment), New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vijay Pandita, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Ramanuj Upadhyay, desiring to be an SI (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2009 (Phase-I), successfully competed for the post, having cleared all the tests. However, after putting him to notice and having his reply, vide order dated 16.06.2011 his candidature has been cancelled for his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.139/2003 u/s 147/148/332/333/341/308 IPC read with Section 7 of Criminal Law &Amendment Act and Sections 2/3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, pertaining to PS Mutthiganj, District Allahabad, in which he was acquitted on 21.04.2010. It is this order which is under challenge in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. It is not in dispute that the applicant had revealed his involvement in the relevant columns of the application and attestation forms. His selection was provisional, subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents etc. In that exercise, it appears, the matter went before the screening committee, on the recommendations of which, the concerned authority had put the applicant to notice, and, as mentioned above, cancelled his candidature. The applicant has annexed with the OA copy of the judgment dated 21.04.2010 passed by the criminal court, vide which he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. It is rather strange to note that even though it is a case where the applicant and others have been held to be victims and not the accused, still the respondents would deny appointment to the applicant. We may briefly mention that the case of the prosecution was that a mob of more than 2000 people collected raising slogans against reservation, in which incident some police personnel and others were injured. Present is a case where the witnesses supported the prosecution version and despite that, on the defence projected by the applicant and others, including that they were themselves injured, a firm finding came to be recorded that the applicant and others were in fact victims and not the accused. While acquitting the applicant and others, the learned court accepted the contention of the counsel representing them that the applicant and others did not cause injury to any one, and that they were present at the spot as curious onlookers, and further that their presence could not be said to be an unlawful gathering with the intent to commit any unlawful activity, and that had they not been present at the spot as curious onlookers, they would themselves not have sustained injuries.
3. We are distressed to note that even a case of this kind where the accused are honourably acquitted, and in fact they are found to be victims, the respondents would still deny appointment to the applicant. Even though, in the impugned order it has been mentioned that the case of the applicant was examined in the context of the gravity of the offence, judgment of the court and grounds of acquittal, but the order would reveal that nothing in that context came to be observed by the concerned authority. Simply after referring to the inputs of the charge required to be looked into and the judgment dated 04.10.1996 of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP(C) No.5340 of 1996) in the matter of DAD v Sushil Kumar, and after making a mention of the skeletal part of the reply to the show cause notice, what has been observed while rejecting the candidature of the applicant, is as follows:
All his written and oral submission in details have been considered and found that the candidate was named in FIR for his involvement in a violent agitation/rioting, damaging public property, assaulting, causing simple/grievous injuries to public servant as well as press reporters and doing an act amounting to attempted culpable homicide. Such act is highly undesirable. His mob mentality and indulging in violent activities without fear of law and land renders him unsuitable for appointment in Delhi Police where the highest standards of discipline are maintained. As such, the candidature of the candidate Ramanuj Upadhyay, Roll No.727227 for the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, 2009 (Phase-I) is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.
4. In number of matters, which have been coming before us, the pattern of the orders is simply making brief mention of the prosecution version, the inputs of the charge required to be looked into, and then by simply accepting the prosecution version, to reject the candidature of the concerned candidate. This, we have held on number of occasions, is no way to do administrative justice. We have found in number of cases that whatever be the nature of offence and whatever may be the manner of acquittal, the respondents would simply take the prosecution version as gospel truth, and without discussing the required inputs, would cancel the candidature of the concerned candidate. Present would rather be a case on better footing, as the applicant and others facing trial for the criminal offences as mentioned above, have been found to be victims rather than accused.
5. We may not comment anything else, but for to state that in a recent order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1821 of 2011 in the matter of Shani Kumar v Commissioner of Police & another, decided on 24.01.2012, we found it suitable to order appointment of a person who was involved in a case u/s 307 IPC. While doing so, we meticulously examined the allegations against the applicant in the said case, the nature of his involvement and gravity of the offence, as also the role attributed to him. We relied upon a decision of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.5510/2010 and connected petition in the matter of Government of NCT of Delhi & another v Dinesh Kumar, decided on 11.11.2010, wherein, in consideration of the facts of the case before it, the Honble Bench thought a candidate to be fit for appointment, even though he was involved in a case u/s 307 IPC. Similar view was taken by us in yet another Original Application bearing OA No.2540 of 2011 in the matter of Mandeep v Government of NCT of Delhi & others, decided on 20.01.2012.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow this Original Application. Order dated 16.06.2011 cancelling the candidature of the applicant for the post of SI (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider appointment of the applicant on the said post, and appoint him if he is otherwise found fit. Let the exercise as ordained above be completed as expeditiously as possible and definitely within a period of six weeks from today. If in such consideration, the applicant is appointed, his seniority would count from the date when others with whom he appeared, were appointed. Normally, while giving directions as mentioned above, we have been observing that the applicant may get the seniority but not the back-wages, but it appears that an exception to this has to be made in the present case. The respondents, as mentioned above, have not even cared to glance through the judgment passed by the court acquitting the applicant and his co-accused. It was a case where the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution supported its version, whereas, the applicant and his co-accused projected a defence as regards their innocence that it was a case where thousands of students were agitating against reservation policy of the Government, and a definite finding came to be arrived at by the court that the applicant and his co-accused were mere onlookers and were themselves injured, and in the manner, therefore, they were victims of the crime. If the respondents might have applied their mind to the facts of the case, there was no question that the candidature of the applicant would have been cancelled. No normal human being with normal common sense could have possibly taken a decision to deny appointment to the applicant. That being so, we order that if in consideration as ordained above, the applicant is appointed on the post under contention, he shall be entitled to salary from the date his colleagues were appointed with whom he competed for his selection and appointment on the post of SI (Exe.). The applicant shall also be entitled to costs, which we quantify at Rupees ten thousand.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/