Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Bharat Udhey Singh vs Chandigarh Administration on 8 May, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.60/446/2024
PRONOUNCED ON: 08.05.2025
RESERVED ON: 21.04.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Bharat Udhey Singh, aged about 24 years, son of Sh. Puran
Singh, Resident of House No. 46, VPO Marimegha, P.S. Khalra,
Tehsil-Patti, District Tam Taran, Punjab.
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. N.K. Bansal).
Versus
1. The Union Territory of Chandigarh, through Secretary,
Department of Home Affairs, UT Secretariat, Sector 9,
Chandigarh 160009.
2. The Director General of Police, Chandigarh, Police
Headquarters, Sector 9, Chandigar-160009.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Sector 9,
Chandigarh 160009.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Sector 9,
Chandigarh. 160009.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Mukesh Kaushik).
2
ORDER
PER: MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Present original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
(ii) That the impugned order (A-11) dated 12-04-2024 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to issue appointment letter to the applicant for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police.
(iii) That the screening committee meeting held on 15-02-
2024 be declared as null and void qua the applicant and without prejudice to the rights of the applicant.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows. According to applicant a false and fabricated FIR No.398, dated 13.11.2021, under sections 376 (2)(f)(3) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act was registered against the applicant. The applicant claims that he was honorably acquitted in the above mentioned FIR vide judgment dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure A-8), passed by the court of Sh. Ranjan Kumar Khullar, Judge, Special Court, SAS Nagar Mohali.
3. The respondent department on 20.05.2023, issued an Advertisement/Recruitment Notice (Annexure A-1) for direct recruitment of 700 Temporary posts of Constable (Executive) in the Chandigarh Police. Pursuant to the above mentioned advertisement, the applicant on 09.06.2023, applied to the above mentioned post and filled the Online Application Form (Annexure A-2), wherein he disclosed all his basic information 3 along with the criminal case details i.e. FIR No.398, dated 13.11.2021 registered against the applicant. Thereafter, the department conducted an OMR Based Exam on 23.07.2023 and the result of which was declared on 10.08.2023, the present applicant having Roll No.712989, successfully qualified the written test and was called for appearing in Physical Efficiency Test (PET). Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT) was conducted on 29.09.2023 at Police Lines, Sector 26, Chandigarh, in which the applicant appeared and successfully qualified the Physical Test as well. A combined merit list was prepared by the respondent department on 18.10.2023, in which the applicant was placed at S. No. 5 in the Waiting List in Unreserved Category. On 08.12.2023, the applicant was informed via E-Mail by the Chandigarh Police that his name has been approved from the waiting list and accordingly he was called for completing the pre-joining formalities. The applicant submitted all the requisite documents and thereafter the same were verified by the respondent department and the medical of the applicant was also got conducted in that too he was declared medically fit. Public notice was issued in which all the successful candidate were called for joining on 21.12.2023 but the applicant was not allowed to enter, then another notice was issued for 26.12.2023 but to utter shock and surprise to the applicant he 4 was again turned away without giving any reason. On 26.12.2023, the applicant gave a letter by hand to the SSP Chandigarh, regarding his grievance regarding not letting the applicant give his joining despite the fact that he was declared a successful candidate in the recruitment process but nothing happened. The applicant gave another letter by hand on 09.01.2024, this time to SP (Headquarters) Chandigarh narrating all the facts and with a request that the applicant may kindly be permitted to give his joining. But still, there was no redressal to the grievances of the applicant. Vide impugned order dated 12-04-2024, applicant was informed that his candidature for the Post of Constable in Chandigarh Police was considered by the screening committee in its meeting held on 15.02.2024 and has been rejected by the committee solely on the ground that the applicant was involved in a criminal case.
4. The respondents have filed written statement submitting therein that the applicant was involved in criminal case FIR No.398 dated 13.11.2021, under section 376 (2) (f) (3) IPC & under Section 6 POCSO Act, in which he has been acquitted by the Hon'ble Court by giving benefit of doubt. The applicant was not called for joining due to involvement in a case FIR No. 398 dated 13.11.2021, under section 376 (2) (f) (3) & IPC & under Section 6 POCSO Act. The fate of his candidature along with other candidates was to be decided by the Screening 5 Committee. The Screening Committee recommended that "considering his past record of involvement in criminal case FIR No. 398 dated 13.11.2021 u/s 376 (2) (f) (3) IPS u/s 6 POCSO Act does not find him fit for appointment as Constable being disciplined force as the post of Constable in the police department is as sensitive post and requiring persons of good character for such service.
5. It is further submitted that his request dated 26.12.2023 was put up before the Screening Committee so constituted for assessing the suitability for the post of Constable and the committee has not found him fit for appointment as Constable being member of disciplined force. Hence, his candidature for the post of Constable is cancelled vide No.22852/UT/E-II dated 12.04.2024.
6. It is further stated that committee was constituted as per standing order No.44/2023 to consider cases of the candidates regarding their involvement in criminal cases or furnishing wrong information/vague documents at the time of filling up the application forms/attestation form for recruitment in the Chandigarh Police. Further, after examining the cases in depth in the meeting of committee held on 15.02. 2024, the case of applicant Bharat Udhey was considered and he was found not fit for appointment as Constable in Chandigarh Police. 6
7. The respondents have relied upon the judgment dated 18.03.2024 in the case of Bhanu Pratap vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it has been held that employer has the right to consider suitability of a candidate as per Government orders, instructions and rules at the time of taking a decision of induction of a candidate into employment. It was further noted that acquittal on technical grounds on benefit of doubt in heinous crime is not honourable acquittal and that a person in police force must have impeccable character integrity and should be of utmost rectitude.
8. The applicant has relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Joginder Singh vs. U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. In the case cited above FIR No.200 was registered under Sections 148/149/323/325/307 of IPC in a criminal case and appellant was acquitted of the charges levelled against him on 04.10.1999. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that Rules 12.2, 12.14 and 12.18 which have laid down criteria to be followed for making appointments to the post of Constable. The above Rules unequivocally state that clean antecedents and good moral character of a selected candidate is the sine qua non. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision has discussed what an honourable acquittal means. The case related to attempt to murder and complainant did not support case of the prosecution as he failed to identify assailant and admitted that 7 contents of the section 161 of Cr.PC. statement were not disclosed to him and his signatures were obtained on a blank sheet of paper by the Investigation Officer. It is apparent that there were gross procedural irregularities also. The Court noted that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. The Court further observed that there was no evidence of concealment of facts and the appellant has honestly disclosed details of criminal case in verification application submitted to the selection authority. However, facts of the present case are different from the above cited case.
9. We find facts of the above case are distinguishable as this case relates to provisions of POCSO Act and not attempt to murder of an individual. From the Form (Annexure A-2) filed by the applicant, it is clear that entire facts have not been disclosed and against criminal case detail only 398 is written and what it relates to has not been clarified. The details were clear only at the time of documents verification. Secondly, the case registered against him is under Section (6) of POCSO Act 2012 which deals with sexual offence against children and such an offence is heinous offence against society having long term 8 impact on the victim and the family. Rule 12.2: Supervision of recruitments clearly states that "standard of performance and the reputation of the whole police force depends above all upon the quality of its Constables." Rule12.14 Recruits-Status states that "Recruits shall be of good character and great care shall be taken in selection of men of a type suitable for police service from candidates presenting themselves for enrolment." Thus, facts of the instant case are distinguishable from the facts in the case of Joginder Singh relied upon by the applicant. A person acquitted by being given benefit of doubt if certainly not suitable as per rules to be recruited in police.
10. Reliance has also been placed by applicant on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Pramod Singh Kirar vs. State of M.P. decided on 02.02.2022. This is also distinguishable on facts as the appellant therein was tried for an offence which resulted in his acquittal which has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute which was settled out of Court. Matrimonial dispute settled out of Court cannot be equated with office under POCSO Act. Reliance has also been placed on Punjab and Haryana High Court decision dated 09.01.2024 in the case of Deepak Kumar vs. Union of India decided on 09.01.2024. In the said case, respondents cancelled appointment on the basis of moral turpitude. In that case, FIR No.93 dated 24.04.2018 under Sections 328, 363, 366 A, 376, 9 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act 2012 was registered and vide judgment dated 24.07.2019 petitioner was acquitted of charges by giving him benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove in criminal trial that it was a fit case under POCSO Act due to non confirmation of age of the victim. Also, the petitioner on his own has disclosed about criminal trial instituted against him and there was no concealment of information by the petitioner.
11. As far as this case is concerned, the case has been registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act which is more heinous in nature than Section 4. Section 6 relates to punishment for aggravated assault. Fact that the prosecutrix was minor i.e. 15 years has not been disputed. FIR No.398 dated 13.11.2021 has very clearly recorded heinous act of the applicant. Hence the case was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO against applicant. In the decision, it was recorded "Prosecution has totally failed to connect the accused with prosecution version. From the entire evidence of the material witnesses PW1 and PW2 who have turned hostile, the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the offences so, story of the prosecution totally falls down. So applicant received benefit of doubt but the Judge has recorded in para 21 and 22 as under:-
10
"21. Xxx It is quite unfortunate that an offence concerning committing of rape and that upon the prosecutrix is going to unpunished. But for such a said eventuality the prosecutrix is responsible through their own act of commission and omission resulting in the court declaring her as witnesses unworthy of trust..."
"22. The court has thus no option to hold the accused not guilty. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, qua the charges levelled against him. Thus, benefit of doubt, ought to be extended to the accused. Resultantly, the accused namely Bharatuday Singh is hereby acquitted of charges levelled against him. Bonds under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. be furnished and file be consigned to the record room." Thus, it is very clear that there is no so called Hon'ble acquittal of the accused and he was given benefit of doubt as PW-1 turned hostile but there is enough circumstantial evidence on record that behaviour of the accused is not above board. We have also seen order dated 12.04.2024, based on the recommendation of screening committee, which did not find the applicant suitable for appointment as constable in a discipline force as the post of Constable in the Police is a sensitive post and requiring persons of good character.
12. To summarise, from facts on record, it is very clear that applicant did not disclose full information in his form regarding his criminal record and the same was discovered on 11.12.2023 when he was called for document verification in Police Headquarter, Chandigarh. It was during checking, it was found that he was involved in a criminal case FIR No.398 dated 13.11.2021 U/S 376(2)(f)(3) IPC U/S 6 of POCSO Act in 11 which he has been acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court giving him benefit of doubt.
13. We have perused Annexure A-9 dated 20.12.2023 issued by District Magistrate Taran Taran to SP HQ, Chandigarh while report refers to his acquittal on 21.10.2022, it states merely local police have no objection to his joining Chandigarh Police.
14. The respondents have relied upon the judgment dated 20.09.2023 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhupendra Yadav, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 19 has held as follows:-
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that mere acquittal of the respondents in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The appellant-State Government has judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors relating to the antecedents of the respondent. In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. The said decision taken by the appellant-State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered therewith. As a result, the judgement dated 17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union Territory Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar in para 16, 17 and 18 has held as follows:-
"16. On behalf of the respondents, much reliance was placed upon Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of 12 Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377. In the said case, the appellant thereon was charged under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and 307 IPC but acquitted by the trial court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against him since complainant as well as injured eye witnesses failed to identify the assailants and the complainant had stated that his signature was obtained on a blank sheet by the Investigating Officer. The case involved was a family dispute. In such facts and circumstances, this Court held that acquittal of appellant Joginder Singh was an honourable acquittal and hence, he should not be denied appointment to the post in question. The decision in Joginder Singh case does not advance the case of the respondents herein.
17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
18. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeals are allowed. The cancellation of candidature of the respondents is upheld. No costs."
15. In view of the discussion herein above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The O.A. is dismissed. No orders to cost.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /kr/