Delhi High Court
Shishir Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 December, 2014
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Kailash Gambhir, Najmi Waziri
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5710/2014
SHISHIR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.H.S. Dhaiya, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hashmat Nabi and Mr. Anuj
Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 03.12.2014 NAJMI WAZIRI, J (ORAL) 1) This petition impugns an order dated 19th November, 2014
whereby the petitioner's appointment to the post of Constable/Driver cum Pump Operator in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF') had been cancelled pursuant to the recommendations of the Standing Screening Committee (in short 'SSC'). The petitioner's case is that on 7th June, 2013, he was appointed to the post of Constable and was required to report to the CISF Recruits Training Centre at Bhilai Uttai, Distt: Durg, Chhattisgarh. On 6th July, 2013, when he reported for his training, he was not allowed to join the same and was sent back in the context of a W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 1 of 6 criminal case in which he had been involved. The petitioner had submitted the relevant documents by post on 3rd September, 2013 but by the impugned order, his appointment was cancelled.
2) Mr. H.S. Dahiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal case in which the petitioner was involved, had already been adjudicated upon way back on 23rd February, 2010 whereby the petitioner had been acquitted. He submits that evidence was led by the prosecution and the Trial Court found that the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 and 3 had turned hostile and there was ample contradiction in the evidence of PW-2, because of which the accused/petitioner deserved to be acquitted. He further submits that once having been acquitted of the charges framed against the petitioners, there was no occasion for the SSC to doubt the character of the petitioner. Hence, he submits that the order of the SSC was without any basis.
3) In reply, Mr. Hashmat Nabi, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner concealed the factum of his involvement in the criminal case when he filled up the application form on 21st August, 2012 for being considered for appointment to the W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 2 of 6 aforesaid post; that the petitioner was constrained to disclose his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case when he was required to file the verification documents after his selection. He has drawn our attention to the fact that the petitioner was constrained to disclose his involvement in a criminal case only when the character and antecedent certificates from the local Station House Officer was required to be filed by him, at the time of his reporting to the Principal of the aforesaid CISF Training Centre, RTC, at Durg. Mr. Nabi has drawn our attention to page no.14 of the compilation handed over by him. There is a character and antecedent certificate which reflects the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case and at page 12 of the said compilation, his response to query No.12 of the attestation form with regard to whether the candidate has ever been prosecuted, was initially given in the negative. However, the said negative answer had been scratched out and 'yes' had been written, evidently after the receipt of the character certificate from the local police. The learned counsel also relied upon the policy guidelines for considering cases of candidates for appointment in CAPFs, pending criminal cases against them and the effect thereof which reads inter-alia: - W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 3 of 6
"V. Nothwithstanding 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 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 person(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, case 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."
4) He further relies upon Annexure A of the said guidelines which lists out offences under the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and other Acts concerning serious offences/offences involving moral turpitude. It includes Section 452 of the IPC, with which the petitioner was charged.
5) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been acquitted after a full-fledged trial. However, this Court notices that the prosecution had failed to prove its case due two of their witnesses turning hostile and contradictions in the statement of PW-2 and hence, the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt and not on the basis of clear exoneration of all the charges levelled against him. In State W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 4 of 6 of M.P. v. Parvez Khan, the Supreme Court while referring to the dicta in Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh, observed that :-
".... a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity."
6) This Court is of the view that the petitioner chose not to disclose his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case in his application form, therefore, he has acted dishonestly and would not be a person of utmost rectitude and integrity for appointment in the CISF.
7) A para military force could hardly place any confidence in a person who chose to suppress relevant material, which would show his involvement in a criminal case. As regards the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, this Court is of the view that the same was on the basis of the benefit of doubt in-so-far the relevant witnesses had turned hostile. The SSC's decision cannot be faulted because it had taken into consideration the involvement of the petitioner in a serious offence/or offences involving moral turpitude. The petitioner inter alia was prosecuted under Section 452 of the IPC, which is covered under W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 5 of 6 Annexure 'A' of the policy guidelines which deals with serious offences/offences involving moral turpitude.
8) In the context of the preceding discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for the exercise of discretion in writ jurisdiction. There is no merit in the present petition, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J KAILASH GAMBHIR, J DECEMBER 03, 2014 pkb W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 6 of 6