Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mehar Singh S/O Kunwar Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 7 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.1819 of 2011 Misc. Application No.232/2012 Reserved on : 6th February, 2012 Date of decision : 7th March, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Mehar Singh S/o Kunwar Singh, R/o Village & Post Raipur Ahirn, Tehsil Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333515. Applicant ( By Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate ) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment), New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Respondents ( By Ms. Alka Sharma, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Candidature of Mehar Singh, the applicant herein, for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, pertaining to the recruitment held in the year 2009 has been cancelled after putting him to notice, vide order dated 22.03.2011. It is against this order that the applicant has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is not in dispute that the applicant had made a mention of the criminal case which he faced, wherein he was acquitted, in all the relevant documents. His candidature has only been cancelled because of his involvement in FIR No.126/2004 u/s 147/341/323/427 IPC, PS Buhana, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). Insofar as, offences u/s 323/341/427 IPC are concerned, the same being compoundable, the parties entered into compromise, and in the manner aforesaid, the applicant was acquitted under the offences referred to above. Insofar as section 147 IPC is concerned, the applicant was put to trial, but was acquitted because the main prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecutions version. The incident in question pertained to the year 2004, five years before the applicant made application for his appointment on the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police. The case against the applicant and others came to be registered on the complaint of one Ramji Lal, who stated that on 15.05.2004 the bus in which he was conductor, after picking up passengers, started from Narnol to Bhuhana at about 2.30 p.m., and when the bus reached Raipur Village bus stand at about 3.15 p.m., the accused persons who were standing on road armed with chain, danda, belt and stones, stopped the bus and surrounded it from all sides. They thereafter entered the bus and gave beatings to him. The complainant and others, who tried to intervene, sustained injuries at the hands, back, eye, ear etc. The impugned order would reveal that the case of the applicant was examined by the screening committee of PHQ, which found the applicant not fit for appointment as he, along with others, had beaten a bus conductor as he dared to demand ticket from his colleagues, and that the conductor was rescued by the passengers, and that the conductor and others received injuries on their hand, back, eye, ear etc. in the scuffle. Nothing at all has been mentioned as to what was the role of the applicant. How was he armed and whether by the arm he was carrying, there was any injury caused on the person of the conductor and others. What was the nature of injuries and who caused them out of the five accused arrayed in the criminal trial, is also not known.
2. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. At this stage we may mention that there is nothing against the applicant as regards his antecedents, but for his involvement in the criminal case aforesaid. In number of such cases, which come up before us, we find the respondents would pass a stereo-type order without any proper evaluation of the relevant inputs. It is no doubt true that while considering the suitability of a person for employment, the nature of his involvement, gravity of the offence, the manner of acquittal and the role attributed to him, are to be taken into consideration, but what we find is that the respondents, without even touching upon the relevant inputs, as mentioned above, would cancel the candidature of the applicant. Present case would thus reflect total non-application of mind. If one was to consider the nature of offence, all provisions of IPC under which the applicant and others were to be tried, being compoundable, the parties entered into compromise. Insofar as section 147 IPC is concerned, the applicant along with others was put to trial, but was acquitted. All the offences, except the one u/s 147, for which the applicant and others were to face criminal trial were compoundable. If in such petty matters where the nature of offence may be the minimum of all the provisions in IPC and the offence may be compoundable without even permission of the court, a person has to be deprived of public employment for life, then it is not known in what cases where a person may be involved in some or the other criminal case, the respondents will choose to appoint him. We may not comment anything else, but for to state that in a recent order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1821 of 2011 in the matter of Shani Kumar v Commissioner of Police & another, decided on 24.01.2012, we found it suitable to order appointment of a person who was involved in a case u/s 307 IPC. While doing so, we meticulously examined the allegations against the applicant in the said case, the nature of his involvement and gravity of the offence, as also the role attributed to him. We relied upon a decision of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.5510/2010 and connected petition in the matter of Government of NCT of Delhi & another v Dinesh Kumar, decided on 11.11.2010, wherein, in consideration of the facts of the case before it, the Honble Bench thought a candidate to be fit for appointment, even though he was involved in a case u/s 307 IPC. Similar view was taken by us in yet another Original Application bearing OA No.2540 of 2011 in the matter of Mandeep v Government of NCT of Delhi & others, decided on 20.01.2012.
3. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow this Original Application. Order dated 22.03.2011 cancelling the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider appointment of the applicant on the said post, and appoint him if he is otherwise found fit. Let the exercise as ordained above be completed as expeditiously as possible and definitely within a period of six weeks from today. If in such consideration, the applicant is appointed, his seniority would count from the date when others with whom he appeared, were appointed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/