Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajay No.10540/Ptc vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 February, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1415/2010 This the 01st day of February 2011 Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Honble Dr. K.B. Suresh, Member (J) Ajay No.10540/PTC (Roll No.511067) Ex. Const. (Ex.) in Delhi Police s/o Shri Mahender Singh r/o Vill. Kheri Dahiya, PO Bhadana Distt. Sonepat, Haryana ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Principal Police Training College Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Sumedha Sharma) O R D E R
Dr. K B Suresh:
The applicant was selected as a Constable in Delhi Police during an appointment procedure in 2009 but on 20.10.2009 a show cause notice is issued to him, produced at Annexure A-1, whereby it was pointed out to him that on later verification it was found that he was involved in a criminal case FIR No.117 dated 3.6.2008 under Sections 323/506/34 IPC of PS Sadar Sonepat (Haryana). It mentions that in the application form in the relevant column in spite of the clear instructions given at the top of the said form, he did not disclose the fact regarding his involvement and, therefore, the concealment of the facts regarding involvement in a criminal case at initial stage clearly reflects his malafide intention and, therefore, it amounts to a grave misconduct and requires him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. The applicant thereupon replied but his defence is rejected on the ground that he did not disclose the facts regarding his involvement in criminal case in the attestation form as well as undertaking he gave at the time of his appointment despite clear instructions given therein. In paragraph 2 of the said order produced at Annexure A-2, it seems that the applicant had raised a plea that he was unaware about the case at the time of submission of the attestation form and also the case is of non-cognizable offence and his involvement in the case was not proved and he was acquitted also.
2. It would appear that the case was taken under Sections 323/506/34 IPC vide case FIR No.117 dated 3.6.2008. There were four accused and in an offence under Sections 323/506, the victim would have had personal interactions against the accused or at least would have alleged it. The Police seem to have instituted a charge on 17.7.2009. Therefore, in the interregnum it is very likely that the Police would have asked him whether he had committed the offence. There is no information available relating to the arrest or custody of the applicant, as it is only under Sections 323/506. It would appear that the matter was taken up for trial speedily and on 15.10.2008, the order was passed in Crl. Case No.87 of 2008. It is also significant in this connection that it is noted that all the accused are on bail with counsel. It was only on 17.7.2008 or thereabouts the accused, including the applicant, would have come to know about the case. The application form is stated to have been made on 20.5.2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was concealment.
3. But assuming that it is later than that, the applicant would aver that after trial the Competent Magistrate Court had acquitted him without even going into the formality of instituting the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.PC, which indicated that there is absolutely nothing available regarding the guilt of the accused, including the applicant. Even assuming that the criminal case was taken up for trial so speedily only because of a compromise entered into between the accused and the victims but in view of the issue involved for the applicant the methodology of trial was adopted as a better course than producing the evidences. The applicant would exhort that still a compromise in a matter, as this, would not indicate moral turpitude so as to disentitle him from holding a post in the Police. He would say that the case is of young boys of the same age, who had indulged in arguments and minor scuffle, which led to registration of a case and the other party has couched in the Police Department. He would say that the Delhi Police had too much from a small incident of hot arguments between boys of young age. He would further say that the applicant has missed to make a mention of this case in the attestation form simply under the impression that it is too minor issue to mention here, as the applicant did not consider it as a criminal act. It is an innocent mistake, which has taken place and because of the applicant being from a village background, he did not understand its legal and consequential meaning and had innocently or foolishly ignored it treating it to be a minor issue not amounting to a criminal act.
4. The applicant would say that there is no trace of criminal intent in the applicant and there is no question of intentional avoidance and, therefore, the object, which is to be secured by mentioning of any case pending against him and the show cause notice and the punishment imposed upon him is out of proportion to each other.
5. The respondents have filed a detailed reply by saying that the applicant adopted deceitful means to obtain an entry into Delhi Police. They would say that the procedural and processual methodology had been ensured and the applicant was given chances to defend himself. The services of the applicant were terminated by a competent authority in accordance with Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Therefore, it requires no regular departmental inquiry and the action taken by the respondents is legal and justified and the orders are passed with proper application of mind. They would also say that the applicant had concealed the fact regarding his involvement in the criminal case.
6. Therefore, the question would arise as to what would have happened if the applicant had mentioned the fact of his involvement in criminal case? If a regular assessment and analysis is made of this case, the applicant would point out that his selection could not have been done at that point of time because the issue of his involvement was too petty and small even going by the FIR but after the acquittal it became more clearer that no stigma could ever be attached to the applicant. Taking a bit further, in village parlance it is possible to have families hostile to each other and it would be sufficient for any one of them to file a false criminal case and get the prospects of others pre-judicially affected. Therefore, the second question to be considered is what is the nature of offence alleged against him? The allegation is only of causing simple hurt and criminal intimidation. It does not involve any question of moral turpitude or lack of integrity, which would pre-judicially affect a young mans entry into the government service. On this respect, then, his averment in his defence statement that he was unaware of the legal and consequential meaning must be taken that he was unaware of the effect of the case. The applicant had produced the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & others v. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 222, wherein their Lordships considered the effect of such submission and the effect of words arrest and custody and what will be the effect of such in the employment prospects of a candidate. The Honble Apex Court has held that since the concerned person has been released on bail, the benefit of a mistaken impression, rather than that of deliberate and willful misrepresentation and concealment of facts, are to be the crucial fulcrum in this adjudicatory process. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana & others, 2006 (4) SCT 429 has held that the termination because of non-disclosure of registration of criminal case, in the absence of conviction, mere registration of the criminal case is no ground for disqualifying a candidate and non-mention of such fact does not amount to concealment of any fact. A similar question was considered in great detail by the Tribunal itself in Vikram Singh v. Union of India & others (OA-1795/2005) decided on 13.12.2006. The Tribunal had then formulated certain definitive guidelines as follows:
Non-disclosure of the case being an inadvertent error is not willful concealment, It was a salutary incident emanating from a sudden quarrel, which did not involve any moral turpitude or even a serious offence. It was not indicative of any propensity to crime; and The applicant was acquitted full and convincingly without even going through the formality of 313 Cr. PC.
7. To this, we have to examine the circumstance of full disclosure of this case at the time of application itself forgetting the relevancy of the dates since his selection was based on analysis of competitive merits, the fact that he was acquitted and the offence was so minor and petty and the circumstances thereof are too late to be mentioned of, would have ensured the selection in the first place. Therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated by non-application of mind as to the cause and effect of the actions alleged against the applicant. It is also guided by the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in GNCT of Delhi & another v. Dinesh Kumar (WP (C) No.5510/2010) decided on 11.11.2010, in which a similar situation of great magnitude was considered by their Lordships and held that there cannot be any bar to seek public employment, especially since one of the petitioners in that case was also charged under Section 323 along with Section 341 IPC. We are inclined to follow the dicta of the High Court and the superior judicial fora and on facts also, there is no ground, which can be brought out to reject the pleas of the applicant.
8. Therefore, the OA is allowed. Impugned orders are hereby quashed. The applicant is to be reinstated back in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, including seniority, except arrears of pay. But it is made clear that he shall be entitled to the pay also from today onwards. No costs.
( Dr. K.B. Suresh ) ( Shailendra Pandey ) Member (J) Member (A) /sunil/