Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Sanjeet Kumar vs The Commissioner Of Police on 9 May, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.1538/2012
New Delhi, this the 9th day of May, 2012
Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A)
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
Shri Sanjeet Kumar, Roll No.801371,
S/o Shri Krishan Kumar,
R/o VPO-Khatiwas, The. & Distt. Jhajjar (HR),
Haryana-124001.
Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
M.S.O. Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
M.S.O. Building,
New Delhi.
3. The District Transport Officer,
Imphal West District,
Imphal,
Manipur-795001.
Respondents.
ORDER (ORAL)
Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) :
The applicant is an aspirant for the post of Constable Driver in Delhi Police on the basis of a recruitment process initiated in 2009. The applicant had submitted his application on 17.3.2009, and he had been selected provisionally for the post after being subjected to a written examination, a trade test and an Interview Board. However, the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled vide impugned order dated 01.03.2012 on the ground of not possessing a valid driving license on the date of submission of the application form and trying to seek employment by adopting deceitful means. This is after issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 05.08.2011 and considering his reply dated 01.09.2011.
2. We have heard Shri Sachin Chauhan, on behalf of the applicant and also perused the material on record. The facts stated before us reveal that the first verification report dated 15.6.2011 had revealed the driving license in question to be forged. However, as in his reply to the Show Cause Notice, the applicant had reiterated validity of his driving license and requested for a re-verification by sending a responsible officer, the respondents had accordingly, sent an officer specially for that purpose and a report dated 07.12.2011 was received. This report, however, had shown the driving license in question to be genuine. It is, further, revealed that in view of the two reports being contrary and inconsistent, the respondents had sent again an officer for further verification and report dated 17.12.2011 was received alongwith the District Transport Officers report on 04.04.2012. As per this report, license in question had been issued in the name of another person for two wheeler/LMV only.
3. Among the several pleas taken in the OA, the main ground raised is on the basis of an information received under the RTI vide a letter dated 4.4.2012 from the District Transport Officer, Imphal (Annexure-A10). As per this letter, the driving license as well as smart card in question issued in favour of the applicant were genuine. The learned counsel Shri Chauhan would also seek to highlight the fact that the present case pertains to Manipur and in several such cases, the initial reports about the driving license were negative, however, as the matter had been agitated before the Tribunal, the re-verification of license was conducted and positive reports had come. There is still some error persistent in the report received from the District Transport Officer and there is a necessity for once again re-verification.
4. Shri Chauhan in all fairness would admit that after having been equipped with this information received under the RTI, the applicant has not approached the departmental authorities submitting this fact before them and urging for reconsideration.
5. Considering the above facts of the case, in our opinion, no purpose would be served by issuing notice in this case. It would be appropriate for the applicant to first avail the departmental remedy itself before seeking judicial redressal. The OA is disposed in limine ( Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma ) ( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) Member (J) Member (A) rk