Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Ranvir Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police on 25 May, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No. 3509/2010 New Delhi this the 25th day of May, 2011 Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Sh. Ranvir Singh, S/o Sh. Nafe Singh, R/o 56/5, Chhotu Ram Colony, Near PWD Store, Club Road, Narwarna, Distt. Jind -Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) -V E R S U S- 1. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police HQ, IP Estate, New Delhi 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment Cell, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi -Respondents (By Advocate: Mrs. Renu George) O R D E R
Dr. Veena Chhotray:
The applicant, a provisionally selected candidate to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police, has been denied appointment on grounds of unsuitability in view of criminal antecedents. This is in pursuance of a Notification advertised in the year 2007 and the provisional selection made in the year 2008.
2. Claims being agitated are in the context of a direct recruitment to fill up 62 posts of SI (Exe.). This was a special recruitment being conducted by the Delhi Police itself in advance keeping in view the common wealth games. The posts had been advertised in the leading newspapers and Employment News in the month of Oct.2007. On participation, the applicant had qualified the Physical Endurance Test, the written test and the interview. He had been declared provisionally selected in the General Category, subject to verification of character, and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents.
2.1 While the selection process was on, on 30.5.2008 an FIR had been registered against the applicant along with his elder brother and one other person in a criminal case in his native place in the state of Haryana. The plea of the applicant is that he had kept the respondents informed of this by a separate application. The fact of the registration of a criminal case against the applicant had also been revealed through the character and antecedents verification report. Subsequently, on trial by the Judicial Magistrate, the applicant along with the other two co-accused had been acquitted for the reason that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
2.2 The case of the applicant was considered by a screening committee constituted for the purpose by orders of Commissioner of Police. Taking into account the judgment of the criminal court and the facts of the case, the Committee found him unsuitable for the post of SI in Delhi Police.
2.3 The applicant had earlier challenged the respondents order dated 8.10.2009 canceling his candidature, through the OA 2989/2009. Examining the matter on merit, vide the Tribunals detailed order dated 19.3.2010 the impugned order had been quashed. However, liberty had been granted to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant in the light of the judgment of the Judicial court, and if they were still of the opinion that the applicant was not fit for service in the Delhi Police, a cogent and speaking order was to be passed to support such conclusion. In pursuance of the Tribunals order, the respondents on reconsideration have passed a revised order dated 10.6.2010, but still found the candidate not suitable for appointment. This order forms of the subject of challenge in the present OA.
3.1 The law on the subject has developed considerably. To briefly sum up the salient features, some milestone decisions on the subject are being mentioned below:
(i) In Delhi Administration Through its Chief Secretary & Ors vs Sushil Kumar {as reported in (1996) 11 SCC 605}, the Honble Apex Court upheld the right of the respondents with regard to verification of character and antecedents of a provisionally selected candidate. Further, the view was taken that in this context what was relevant was the conduct or character of the candidate rather than the actual outcome of the criminal case.
(ii) In WP (C) 6042-43/2005 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors vs Deepak Kumar & Ors) and other connected writ petitions decided on 28.11.2005, the Honble High Court had held that before denying the appointment, the nature of offence in which the applicant might have been involved and the manner of acquittal needed to be properly examined.
The decision of the Coordinate Bench presided by the Honble Chairman of this Tribunal in the OA 178/2008 Anoop Kumar vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors decided by its order dated 23.7.2008 is of special significance. In this order, it had been emphatically held that denial of appointment to a citizen for all time to come is indeed a serious matter, more so when there was no finding of conviction by a criminal court. It was also stated that in the latter cases the responsibility of the higher ranking officers to consider all the relevant aspects before coming to such a decision, became all the more onerous. As per the learned Coordinate Bench, in such cases the respondents were required to consider all the attendant circumstances leading to commission of the trial, nature of offence that might appear from the contents of the FIR, statements of defence witnesses, medical evidence and all attendant circumstances needing consideration.
In another OA 2436/2009 Promod Kumar vs GNCTD & Ors decided on 8.3.2010, a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal (of which one of us, i.e. Member (A) was a part) had held that in criminal jurisprudence, there was no such concept like honourable or disgraceful acquittal. Further, in the Delhi Police the authorities have been mandated to make appointments in terms of rule 25 of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Appointment) Rules, 1980 considering the verification of character and antecedents. It was held that though the Delhi Police is within its domain to appoint or not a selectee, who does not hold an indefeasible right to be appointed, however, the same has to be as per the statutory provisions and without over-reaching its jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court by its common order dated 11.11.2010 in WP(C) No.5510/2010 (GNCTD & Anr vs Dinesh Kumar) and the WP(C) No.5527/2010 (GNCTD vs Subhash Chand) had, inter alia, raised the issue whether public interest or public good would be jeopardized if a person with a criminal background is inducted in public service.
The recent judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the Civil Apeal No.1430 of 2007 (Commissioner of Police & Ors vs. Sandeep Kumar) decided on 17.3.2011, had emphasized the approach to condone minor indiscretions made by young people considering their tender age rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. This is one of the decisions relied upon in support of the claims in the OA (Annex P/3).
3.2 One common stream running through all these judgments is that each case needs to be considered as per its specific facts and circumstance. While the proposition about acquittal in a criminal case suo motto entailing a right to appointment has not been endorsed in any of the decisions; nor the legitimate domain of the appointing authorities for character and antecedents verification of a candidate questioned; however, an extreme care and caution has been advocated while carrying out the exercise. The responsibility of the respondents in this regard is indeed a serious one; any perfunctory or mechanical approach has been deprecated: as it involves depriving a citizen of India of his appointment, despite having been found otherwise fit.
4. In the above backdrop of the law on the subject, we would now proceed to look at the gamut of circumstances in the present case.
4.1 The FIR in question was No.116/2008 U/S 332/353/285/186/506 read with 34 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS Sadar, Narwana, Haryana dated 30.5.2008. It had pertained to an incident in the intervening night of 29/30.5.08 and had been registered on the complaint of one ASI, Raghubir Singh of the same PS. It had been alleged that the said ASI while on patrolling duty along with the HC, Shish Pal had found the applicant along with two others i.e. his elder brother Randhir Singh and one Navneet Singh driving in a car behind the patrolling party. The patrolling party had heard noise of two fires. On the stopping of the vehicle of the alleged accused, the three persons were found drunk. One of them had been armed with a pistol and had also threatened to fire, in case they were chased. Allegations of manhandling the two police personnel and even tearing the uniform had been levelled. As per the complaint, on being informed the PCR had sent another vehicle and Constable Ramesh Kumar and ASI Rattan Singh had also arrived on the spot and apprehended the culprits.
On completion of investigation, challan had been presented in the court against the three accused. However, the court had found the prosecution evidence as not reliable to support the conviction of the accused persons. All the three, including the applicant, had been acquitted giving them a benefit of doubt.
4.2 While assessing the matter relating to the suitability or otherwise of the applicant for appointment, the screening committee after taking notice of the various contradictions in the prosecution evidence and considering the judgment of the criminal court, had arrived at a negative finding against the applicant. The reasons as perceived by the committee were stated as follows:-
In this case, though the prosecution failed to establish the person who had fired and who had beaten the policed officials but the incident of firing had taken place. Shri Ranvir Singh was checked at the place of incident and he was found in possession of a pistol which shows that he was the person who had fired. This is a case of acquittal in which material witnesses turned hostile. His involvement shows premeditated tendency to indulge in crime without fear of law and such type of attitude renders him unsuitable for appointment in a law enforcing agency and in a disciplined force like Delhi Police. An additional reason adduced was the non-furnishing of the information of this criminal case to the respondents despite clear instructions on the application and the attestation forms. These had prescribed if a criminal case is registered against you or you are arrested/detained/convicted/debarred etc. subsequent to the submission of the forms the relevant details regarding the same should be communicated to DCP/4th Bn.DAP, failing which it shall be deemed to be suppression of factual information. The final conclusion arrived at was From the above, it is obvious from the judgment that the evidence was contradictory and inconsistent. Constable Ramesh Kumar, police driver turned hostile and did not identify the accused in the Court and ASI Raghubir Singh failed to identify the person who had beaten him and the person who had fired a short. There is no denying that incident took place in which firing occurred. The seized pistol was licensed in the name of Shri Ranvir Singh, the applicant. The Ld. Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused by giving them benefit of doubt. However, it is obvious by the test of preponderance of probabilities that Ranvir Singh was involved in the incident and that the shot had been fired by the pistol licensed in his name. An individual with such a post is obviously unfit for police service.
5.1 The major pleas by the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri M.K. Bhardwaj would be : (i) The impugned order had suffered from non-application of mind on the part of the respondents; (ii) This had been passed completely brushing aside the judicial findings of the criminal court and (iii) in utter disregard of the directions by the Tribunal in the OA 2989/2009. The learned counsel would draw our attention to the fact that the impugned decision was based on the deliberations in the Screening Committee meeting held on 18.9.2009 which was prior to the directions of the Tribunal while disposing the aforesaid OA by its order dated 6.10.2010. Further, it would be submitted that on Contempt Petition being filed in this regard, the same had been disposed granting a liberty to the applicant to agitate it afresh.
5.2.1 Certain factual premises on which the impugned order was based would also be rebutted. It would be averred that it was not correct to say that the applicant had not informed the respondents regarding the criminal case, as he was required to do. This had been done vide a separate application dated 17.7.2008, a copy of which has been annexed with the OA as P/13. A perusal of the original record produced by the respondents confirms receipt of this information at the end of the respondents.
5.2.2 Further, the submission would be made that the mention in the impugned order of the applicant having been in possession of the pistol at the time of the alleged incident and the same having been licensed in his name was not correct either. In support, a copy of the report, dated 29.8.2010, from the concerned Police Station to the effect that there was no Arm License in the name of the applicant has been enclosed as Annex P/10. Besides, the above inference on the part of the respondents is also stated to run counter to the judicial findings in this regard by the criminal court. The following extracts would be adverted to by the learned counsel:-
In prosecution story it is mentioned that the tall man in black T-Shirt was holding the pistol and on asking he told his name Randhir. Randhir has licence under Arms Act. So offence against Ranbir is not proved U/S 25, 54, 59 Arms Act. 5.3 As per the learned counsel, Shri Bhardwaj the present case is a clear example of the administrative authorities over-reaching the findings without any reasonable basis.
5.4 Before the cancellation order, the applicant had not even been issued a show cause notice. Hence, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice would also be taken.
5.5 The OA alleges the respondents adopting a pick and choose policy. Para 4.15 of the OA states about 6 candidates having been given appointments despite being involved in criminal cases. The names and other particulars have also been given.
5.6 By jeopardizing the career of a bright young man at the threshold, the plea of the respondents having not observed the principles of equity and fair play would also be raised.
5.7 The learned counsel would rely upon certain judicial rulings in support of the claims in the OA. These are being briefly stated below:
a) The Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 25.8.2010 in WP(C) No. 2068/2010 (GNCTD & Anr vs Robin Singh) would be cited where para 36 observed as follows:-
Life is too precious to be staked over petty incidents and the cruel result of conviction for petty offences being the end of the career, the future and the present, of young and inexperienced persons cannot blast their life and their dreams.
b) OA 2122/2008 (Sandeep Mann vs GNCTD & Ors) decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 25.2.2009. Our attention would be drawn to paras 6 and 7 of this order:-
On an anxious consideration of the facts highlighted, we feel that the impugned decision has been passed on an impulse and the matter should have been approached with, in a more humane and mature manner. The cancellation of the appointment, according to us, was not warranted and the solitary incident as arrayed against a youngster could not have been a pointer for a conclusion that he had traits in his blood for criminality.
Taking into account the totality of the situation the impugned order had been quashed and the respondents directed to forthwith readmit the applicant to duty.
c) OA 2365/2008 with OAs 2366/2008 and 2082/2008 decided by a common order dated 23.7.2009. In this case, taking note of the circumstances presented before it, the Ld. Coordinate Bench had held that the applicants were entitled to fair chance of being considered for employment. Quashing the impugned order, the respondents had been directed to consider applicants candidature as valid for all purposes.
6.1 Contesting the claims in the OA, the learned counsel for the respondents, Ms Renu George would make the submission regarding non-furnishing of the information of the criminal case by the applicant, as he was required to do under the instructions.
6.2 It would be submitted by the learned counsel, Ms George that the Tribunals directions in the earlier OA had only been by way of consideration and a fair appreciation. There had been no direction for appointment considering the criminal courts judgment.
6.3 The respondents learned counsel would cite in support the decision of another Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the OA No.2429/2006 (Sanjeev Kumar vs GNCTD & Ors) decided on 21.4.2011. It would be pointed out by the learned counsel that in this case the claims for appointment had not been entertained by the Tribunal on the ground of not finding anything arbitrary in the decision of the respondents and for the proposition of law that it was the prerogative of the employer to select a person, who according to them, bears a good morale conduct.
Besides the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Daya Shankar Yadav vs UOI & Ors {2010 (12) SCALE 477} would also be adverted to by the learned counsel to support the respondents stand. A perusal of the judgment however, reveals that the appellant in this case had made a false stated about not having been prosecuted in any criminal proceedings. The Honble Apex Court had, therefore, found the employer (CRPF) justified in dispensing with his services.
6.4 It is, however, noted that the respondents have not made any factual rebuttal with regard to the averment of discrimination among similarly situated in the OA.
7. We have carefully heard the learned counsels and also perused the material on record.
8.1 The two fold factual rebuttals made on behalf of the applicant i.e. (i) furnishing of information to the respondents about the criminal case; (ii) the finding in the impugned order regarding the applicant being in possession of the pistol and the same being in his name, are not borne out to be correct. The contentions of the applicant in this regard as stated above are found to be acceptable. The averments of discrimination as a result of the respondents following a pick and choose policy have also not been rebutted factually and effectively.
8.2 Even though as per the settled law, mere fact of acquittal in a criminal case may not suffice as the credentials to justify the suitability of a candidate for appointment to a public office; nonetheless the judicial findings arrived at by the Court of competent jurisdiction in course of a criminal trial do have a critical relevance in any such consideration.
8.2.1 In this case there were 10 PWs, all from the Police. The judicial court had noticed several inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, besides the glaring irregularity of the complainant and the IO of the case being the same Police official i.e. ASI Raghubir Singh. The circumstances for not holding the charges against the accused were crystallized in para 12 of this judgment. The relevant extracts are as below:
Now considering the above evidence as a whole it is clear that the statement of the various police officials are contradictory to each other PW1 in examination in chief states that there was pistol with the accused persons but in the cross examination he clearly states that there was a revolver with the accused persons and not the pistol. PW1 in the cross examination states that V.T. was done from the Dana Pani Hotel but PW2 in the cross examination states that V.T. was done from running vehicle. Both these are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW2 states that public told them about the name of the accused persons. On the other hand PW4 HC Shishpal states that accused told their name on asking by ASI Raghbir Singh PW1 in the cross examination deposed that PCR are met to them Hariyali stoppage. But PW2 suffered that PCR met to them near cremation ground. PW10 DSP Sube Singh desposed that he did not try to joint any public witness and he did not write the FIR.
Further, it had gone on to say :
So from facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that complainant and I.O. of the present case are same to some extent. In this case, the victims and prosecution witness are police officials. Their testimony requires strict scrutiny. On scanning their evidence as a whole, they have caused material contradictions, which could not be expected from police officials. There was no pubic witness was joined in the investigation proceedings and subscriber of the FIR was not examined in the court. There is no conformity in the statements of the police officials and they are contradictory to each other and not corroborating each other. In prosecution story it is mentioned that the tall man in black T-shirt was holding the pistol and on asking he told his name Randhir. Randhir has licence under Arms Act. So offence against Ranbir is not proved U/S 25/54/59 Arms Act.. The prosecution witnesses admitted that they did not seek the person who fired. They also admitted that they did not know who beated them.
Finally the view taken was:
In such circumstances the prosecution evidence is not reliable to cause the conviction of the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. Hence the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused persons under sections 332, 353, 285, 186, 506 r/w section 34 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act and as such accused persons are acquitted thereof by giving benefit of doubt. 8.2.2 A comparative reading of the reasons assigned by the screening committee and the trial courts judgment does show the present case as on in which the administrative authorities are resorting to findings running counter to those in the judgment of the judicial court.
8.3 This is the second round of litigation. The earlier OA 2989/2009 agitating the same grievance had been considered by a Coordinate Bench. After a very thorough consideration, the Ld. Coordinate Bench had arrived at the following findings:-
6. On considering all the circumstances in the case on balancing the equities, we find that the impugned order canceling the candidature of the Applicant is hasty and the Respondents have not considered the true import of the judgment acquitting the Applicant. There is no consideration of the judgment In this light, the order passed by the respondents earlier canceling the applicants candidature had not been found sustainable and quashed. Even while granting a liberty to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant, the Tribunal had found it a fit case to lay down the specific stipulation that what was required was that reconsideration should be in the light of the judgment of the judicial court. Not to leave any doubt about its intentions, it had further been clarified that in case the respondents were still of the opinion about the applicant not being fit for induction in Delhi Police, a cogent and speaking order to support such a conclusion was to be passed.
We do not find the impugned order satisfying the above stipulations of the learned coordinate Bench.
8.4 To add to it, the applicant who had cleared all other tests, is being made to accept a de facto condemnation by way of the cancellation of his candidature without issuance of any show cause notice. The violation of principles of natural justice cannot be held justified.
8.5 In Mansingh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2008) (7) SCALE 750 laying down the principle of law about fair play and reasonableness being the touchstone of any administrative action. The Honble Apex Court had observed:-
..Any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have had it. 8.6 We are deliberately restraining from discussing the several judicial rulings relied upon by the learned counsels on both the sides, considering that the facts and circumstances of each case are different and the decision in a particular case may not be treated as a general principle of law. The only judicial rulings, we are relying upon are those as indicated by us in para3 above, since according to us they connote the development of law on the subject.
9. In view of the foregoing, taking into account the totality of circumstances of this case as well as the law on the subject, we find it a fit case warranting judicial intervention. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the respondents directed to treat the applicant as a validly selected candidate and offer appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) Male, subject of course, to medical fitness and final checking of documents. This would be from the prospective effect. Our directions are to be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (G.George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pkr/