Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahipal Singh Jat (Roll No. 432322) vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 November, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 89/2008 New Delhi this the 28th day of November, 2008 Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J) Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A) Mahipal Singh Jat (Roll No. 432322), Recruit Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police, S/o Sh. Jhaber Mal Jat, R/o VPO : Malakali Via Ringas, Tehsil : Shrimadhopur, Distt : Sikar, Rajasthan. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri Anil Singhal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, Recruitment, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, 4th Bn. DAP, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri Ajesh Luthra) O R D E R
Honble Mr. Justice M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J).
A show cause notice had been issued as Annexure A-1 to the applicant as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. He was given to understand that on scrutiny of the Application Form & Attestation Form, respondents had come to know about the details of two criminal cases as arising out of FIR No.90 of 2003 and FIR No. 39 of 2004. They were cases where he had involved himself in an offence of wrongful restraint and a case of causing grievous hurt and rioting. The notice indicated that ultimately although he had been acquitted, this was on the basis of compromises. It was, therefore, sufficient, for the respondents to come to a conclusion that he had a tendency to involve himself in criminal activities and, therefore, perhaps unfit to become part of a disciplined force. A reply is seen to have been submitted on 23.08.2007 but the Deputy Commissioner had stuck to his stand, alleging that the conduct indeed disclosed a tendency to involve himself in criminal activities and, therefore, he was not found suitable for the post of police constable. His candidature was, therefore, cancelled by order dated 27.08.2007, copy produced as Annexure A-2. An appeal had been filed challenging the order as above, but the same has been rejected. The above orders are under challenge.
2. Mr. Anil Singal, appearing on behalf of the applicant, had invited our attention, to an order passed by a Bench of this Tribunal in OA 178/2008. He points out that almost an identical question had come to be decided. It was also a case of compromise. Ultimately the concerned person had been acquitted. It is pointed out that the Bench was of the opinion that it was a duty of the respondent police officers not to take too lightly while taking decisions in serious matters, such as denial of appointment to a citizen. Citing Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar & Ors. (WP (C) No. 6042-43/2005, in OA No. 2429/2006, where it had been observed that the nature of the offence and the manner of the offence has to be gone into properly, it is alleged that this observation has gone unnoticed. If, as a matter of fact, the allegation against a person involved moral turpitude and the same is heinous, grave and committed with evil propensities, the person concerned may be undeserving. Therefore, it was necessary that the charges, on which a person had been tried indeed was to be gone into, but light work had been done by the respondents, which requires interference.
3. The counsel submits that a fresh look of the mater indeed was essential also, as has been observed by the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 6042-43 of 2005. It had been suggested that by the above judgment, the Delhi Police had been directed to look into 19 cases, where similar facts were involved, namely, that criminal proceedings had been suggested as a circumstance to cancel the candidature. At least in eight cases, referred to by the High Court, subsequently appointment had been granted. Mr. Anil Singal submits that in some other cases, there was allegation of more serious offences but ultimately taking notice of the situations, which had come into light, the authorities had retraced their steps.
4. Mr. Ajesh Luthra, counsel on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the matter has already been noticed with seriousness, and the decision to cancel the candidature had come after a mature consideration of the issue. He points out that a committee is specially constituted to look into such matters so as to avoid blame of individual decisions. The committee had come to know that there were two criminal proceedings as against the applicant, and it could have naturally been possible to conclude that there was tendency on the person concerned to get himself involved in criminal activities. The records indicated that the issues were compromised and this is pointed out to be a possible circumstance that there was circumstance available for prosecuting the man concerned but he had got away. He also invited our attention to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar (1996 (11) SCC 605). An appointing authority, has discretion, for deciding as to whether the antecedent and records of a person could be considered as condonable or undesirable. The discretion exercised would not have been normally disturbed. Mr. Luthra submits that there was no suggestion that any malafides had been played on the part of the respondents to come to the conclusion as has been arrived at. Therefore, no interference was warranted.
5. We have come to note that respondents are frequently coming up with instances of similar issues, and they have constituted a committee for assessing the individual situations pointedly. But the issue requires closer application of mind. It may be that there were two instances of prosecution as against the applicant. However, a prima facie circumstance is there in his favour that he has been acquitted on both occasions. He had not been found guilty, although a short cut method was employed. We cannot forget that at times persons might be implicated in criminal cases, deliberately, intentionally or because of mistake of facts. As highlighted by the Bench decision in Anoop Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT and Anr. (OA 178/2008), individual facts do require to be noted for deleting claims of a person as unsuitable for public service.
6. A rejection will result in civil consequences for the person concerned. If, as a matter of fact, he was innocent, it will have a lasting effect on his life. Further, at a very young age, a person may be hyperactive, and may commit indiscretion, but that by itself should not be put against him for a treatment too harsh. Per se Annexure `A do not indicate that the Committee had gone into the above issue, meticulously as was expected of them. In fact, strong reliance was on the circumstance that there were two FIRs registered.
7. Taking notice of the circumstance as above, we are of the view that a further opportunity should be given to the applicants cause. His case is to be reconsidered by the respondents in the light of the observations made by us as above as well as CWP No. 6042-43/2005 of the Delhi High Court and OA 178/2008 of the CAT (Principal Bench), New Delhi. After deliberations by the Committee, the Joint Commissioner should come up with an order finally deciding the issue concerning the applicant. This may be done within a period of two months from today. We make no order as to costs.
( N.D. DAYAL ) ( M. RAMACHANDRAN ) MEMBER (A) VICE CHAIRMAN (J) SRD