Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Vinod Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.2137/2006 MA No.2681/2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 5th DAY OF JULY, 2011 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar, R/o Village and Post Ismaila, 11 Biswa, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. Applicant (By Advocate: Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Respondents. (By Advocate: Mrs. Renu George and Mrs. Alka Sharma) : ORDER : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A):
By a common order dated 24.04.2008, this Tribunal decided 14 OAs. The case of the present Original Application was also decided in the same order and the Applicant was not granted relief. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant moved the Honble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.6931/2008 which was decided on 17.09.2010 in following terms :-
6. A perusal of the impugned decision shows that the Tribunal went into the quality of the evidence which led to the acquittal and the seriousness of the charge. The underline ethos of the impugned decision is that the Tribunal has not treated mere brush with criminal law as disentitling a person to public employment. The Tribunal has held that those who were charged of being involved in serious offences and notwithstanding the acquittal, quality of evidence though pertaining to the acquittal, disentitled such persons from public employment.
7. But we find that the Tribunal has discussed the issue on merits only qua 5 applicants before it.
8. We find that pertaining to Vinod Kumar no specific findings have been rendered for the reason there is no discussion at all pertaining to Vinod Kumar save and except listing the name of Vinod Kumar in table 1 of a chart prepared. We note that the Tribunal has prepared the charts under table 1 and table 2 in para 5 of the impugned decision, to be used as a charter to further discuss but further discussion is confined only to 5 cases. Under the circumstances we dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 24.4.2008 dismissing OA No.2137/2006 filed by Jitender Singh; the petitioner.
9. OA No.2137/2006 is restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
10. Since parties are represented before us we direct that the parties shall appear through their counsel before the Registrar of the Tribunal on 18.10.2010. At least two weeks prior thereto, the petitioner would move a formal application enclosing therewith a copy of the present decision so that the file can be placed before the Registrar on 18.10.2010.
2. Pursuant to the above directions, we are adjudicating the present OA afresh. The issue in the present OA revolves around the fact that the Applicant filed his application on 19.4.2002 for appointment to the post of Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police, and was successfully cleared the selection process for recruitment but he was denied the opportunity to serve Delhi Police. Inspite of the fact that he disclosed his involvement in criminal case in the Application and Attestation Forms, and his acquittal in the criminal case, his candidature was cancelled vide order dated 28.08.2003. Being aggrieved, he moved this Tribunal in OA No.2301/2003 where his relief was allowed by this Tribunal in the order dated 24.12.2004. But the Respondents approached the High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition (WPC No.8026-27/2005) which was allowed by setting aside the Tribunal order and the matter was remitted to the Respondent No.1 to appreciate the nature and gravity of offences and the manner in which he was acquitted. It was interalia observed by the Honble High Court that after such appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, if it was found by the Respondent No.1 that the Applicant could not be appointed as he was not suitable and desirable to be appointed to the post of Constable in Delhi Police, an appropriate order giving reasons for such a decision should be passed. Out of 19 cases considered in the above manner, the Respondent No.1 offered appointments to 7 candidates but the Applicant was not given appointment and his candidature was cancelled vide order dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure-A1). Assailing the said order, the Applicant filed the present OA which was decided along with other cases vide order dated 24.4.2006. The Applicant moved the Honble High Court of Delhi as stated within and the matter has been remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Relief(s) prayed for in the present case are as follows :-
1. To quash and set aside the impugned Order dt. 31.1.2006 and direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of Constable (Ex.) with all consequential benefits including Seniority/promotion and arrears of pay.
2. To award costs in favour of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Honble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.
3. The facts of the case are briefly recapitulated here. During the year 2002, an advertisement to fill up 2359 vacancies for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police was issued in leading News Papers dated 29.03.2002 and Employment News dated 13.04.2002. In response to the advertisement the Applicant applied for the said post. He was put through Physical Endurance and Measurement Test, Written Test, Interview and was declared provisionally selected. But the said selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents and final checking of documents etc. The character and antecedents of Applicant were verified from the authority concerned which revealed that he was involved in a criminal case FIR No.178/2000, dated 24.06.2000 u/s 148/149/307/325/506 IPC along with Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act of PS Sampla (Haryana). On scrutiny of Application Form dated 19.04.2002 and Attestation Form dated 17.12.2002 filled up by the Applicant, it revealed that he had disclosed the facts of his involvement in the said criminal case in both the Forms. On examination further, the Respondents found that he had been acquitted by the Trial Court in the criminal case and the same was not honourable. A Show Cause Notice was issued dated 17.06.2003 proposing cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable(Exe.). In response, he represented against the same in his letter dated 02.7.2003. On consideration, his reply was found not convincing and his candidature was cancelled on the ground that the Applicants acquittal was mainly due to the material witnesses turning hostile and the Applicant evading arrest for a period of about 6 months after the incident. As narrated within the said order was challenged. However, the case has gone through this Tribunal to the Honble High Court and on remittance to the Respondent No.1, the case came again to the Tribunal after the Applicants candidature was re-considered. The Applicants case was examined by the Screening Committee duly constituted by the Commissioner of Police. The 3-Member Committee met on 26.12.2005 and 12.01.2006, where the Committee took into account the nature of involvement of the Applicant in the criminal case, gravity of the offences, the judgment of the Trial Court, and the grounds of acquittal in the case. It is stated that the committee was guided by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.1996 in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5340 of 1995) in the case of Delhi Administration versus Sushil Kumar (1996-11-SCC-605). The Committee observed that the Applicant was involved in a criminal case involving serious offence and had been acquitted by the Trial Court on the principal ground that the main witnesses turned hostile. The committee also noted that he was involved in a serious offence viz. attempt to murder. Thus, the competent authority took into view the observation made by the Screening Committee and the judgment of the Trial Court, found the Applicant not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and his candidature for the said post was cancelled by the Memo dated 31.01.2006, which he assailed in the present OA.
4. The Applicants case is that he has voluntarily revealed his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal when he filled up his Application and Attestation Forms. The Respondents were aware of his criminal case and allowed him to appear in the test and interview which he successfully qualified. If the Applicants involvement in the criminal case per se debars or stands as an impediment, the Respondents should not have allowed him to appear in Physical, Written, Interview and Medical tests. It was contended that the fact that he was allowed in those tests and interview indicated that his involvement in the criminal case was not sufficient for cancelling his candidature. Shri Anil Singal, the learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was acquitted in the criminal case, as a result, the stigma attached to him for the criminal case was obliterated. Thus, the Applicant cannot be denied appointment. He referred to the judgment of the Trial Court to say that the Applicant was acquitted not for hostile witnesses but the absence of any incriminating evidence brought on record against the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant, being free from the stigma, is fit to be appointed. Relying on the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Mohan Lal versus Union of India [1982 (1) SLR 573], he submits that acquittal of the Applicant is complete acquittal on merits and refers to the following:
Acquittal of a Government servant on benefit of doubt is complete acquittal on merits and consequentially the concerned Government Servant shall be entitled to full pay and allowances.
5. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the alleged offence was not serious which should be ignored and placed his reliance on the following part of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana ( 1996 (4) SCC 17);
Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary Courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are, therefore, necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that many candidates, having been involved in Criminal Cases, have been appointed in Delhi Police. He referred to the case of Shri Braham Prakash, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sh. Shamsher Singh and many others who were involved in the respective criminal cases but were appointed in their respective posts in Delhi Police. His contention is that the Applicant being similarly circumstanced should not be discriminated.
7. Shri Anil Singal made further reference to the case of Matadeen Garg versus State of Rajasthan [SLP No.15234/1988 decided on 12.07.1991] to state that it was only the conviction that would impede the appointment of a selected candidate. The Applicant was not convicted but acquitted and hence his selection for appointment in Delhi Police should not have been cancelled. Further, he submits that the Respondents cannot sit on the judgment over the orders passed by the Trial Court which was not even challenged by the prosecution in the appellate Criminal Court. The Respondents are not free to contest the same but to accept the verdict of the Court.
8. The learned counsel for the Applicant strongly urged that judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar case (supra) on which reliance was placed by the Respondents, was not applicable to the Applicants case as that was a case of concealment whereas it was not so in the present case since the Applicant had voluntarily revealed his involvement in the criminal case at the time of his making Application and also subsequently in the Attestation Forms. The Respondents have not given due consideration to the Applicants submissions and passed the order in a routine manner which is bad in law. Relying on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Police and Others versus Sandeep Kumar [Civil Appeal No(s) 1430 of 2007 decided on 17.03.2011], Shri Singal submitted that the Respondent concealed his involvement in a criminal case and after his selection to the post of Head Constable, the Appellants cancelled his candidature and the Respondents application before this Tribunal was dismissed and Honble High Court of Delhi allowed the Writ Petition in favour of the Respondent and while upholding the Honble High Courts order, it was observed that It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter. For the reasons above given, this appeal has no force and it is dismissed. The Applicants counsel would, therefore, contend that the Applicant stood in a better footing as not only the charges were not serious but he was acquitted in the case.
9. The Applicants Counsel made further reference to the case of Samraj Singh versus Government of NCT of Delhi and Another [OA No.153/2009 decided on 8.12.2009], wherein, this Tribunal remanded the case of Samraj Singh to the Respondent to re-examine. In support of his contentions, the judgments of Honble Delhi High Court in 5 cases viz. Delhi Police and Another versus Omveer Yadav [WP (C) No.12899/2009 decided on 19.04.2010], Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another versus Jai Prakash [WP (C) No.3566/2010 decided on 24.05.2010]; Govt. of NCT of Delhi versus Sunil Kumar [WP (C) No.5768 decided on 27.08.2010]; a batch of two Writ Petitions [WP(C) No.5510/2010 and 5527/2010] decided together on 11.11.2010; Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another versus Dinesh Kumar was the lead case; and Ram Het Meena versus Union of India and Others [WP(C) No.9314/2009 decided on 15.03.2011] wherein the law laid in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi and Another versus Robin Singh [171 (2010) DLT 705 DB] was relied on to direct the Respondents to reconsider the candidature of the Petitioners.
10. The Respondents, on receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, have filed their reply affidavit on 17.01.2007 opposing the grounds taken by the Applicant. Mrs. Renu George and Mrs. Alka Sharma, learned Counsel of the Respondents controverted the contentions advanced by Shri Anil Singal. Respondents also produced copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 26.12.2005 and 12.01.2006 which considered the Applicants suitability for the said post. The Respondent averred that the Honble Supreme Court of India in Sushil Kumars case (supra) laid the law which guides the Respondents. She drew our attention to the judgment to submit that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though, he was physically found fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedents record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint him with such record as a Constable to the disciplined force.
11. It is contended that Respondents examined the Applicants case through a Screening Committee which took into account the Trial Court judgment wherein the Applicant was acquitted, the nature of Applicants involvement in the criminal case, gravity of offence, grounds of acquittal and keeping in mind the law set by Honble Supreme Court in Sushil Kumars case (supra) found the Applicant not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police. It is further contended that all candidates are put to tests and interview and the successful candidates are selected provisionally. Only after their medical test, character and antecedents verification, the candidates so found fit are issued offer of appointment. But, as the Applicant was found not suitable by the Committee, the competent authority after consideration of the Applicants representation on the Show Cause Notice passed the candidature cancellation order.
12. Referring to the discrimination ground raised by the Applicant, it was stated that each and every case was decided on the basis of respective facts and circumstances and the related judgment of Court/Tribunal in the criminal case. The Applicants case being dissimilar to those cases, the discrimination would not stand the test.
13. In support of the above contentions, the Respondents placed their reliance on the judgment in the matter of Daya Shankar Yadav Versus Union of India and Others [2010(12) SCALE-477]; Sanjeev Kumar Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others [OA No.2429/2006 decided on 21.04.2011], and Davender Kumar Yadav Versus Government of NCT of Delhi and Another [OA No.97/2010 decided on 31.5.2011]. It is, therefore, argued that the OA is a fit case to be dismissed
14. We have given our careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by both the parties. We have also carefully perused the minutes of Screening Committee Meeting in respect of the Applicant and have studied the judgments relied on by the parties. For brevity in our order, we refer to the judgments which we consider relevant for determination of the issue raised in the OA.
15. The controversy in the present case is very focused one:- Whether the impugned order dated 31.01.2006, wherein the Applicants candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) was cancelled, despite his disclosure of the criminal case in the Application and Attestation forms and his acquittal in the criminal case, is legally sustainable or not?
16. It is noted that the relevant Act, Rules and Regulations governing the selection and appointment to the posts in Delhi Police do not provide guidance on the issues. However, recently a Standing Order (SO) which has been issued in the form of guidelines throws some light. The Standing Order No.398/2010 dated 23.11.2010 is the offshoot of the experience Delhi Police has gathered in the past in the selection process for various posts. The SO lays the policy for deciding cases of candidates provisionally selected in Delhi Police involved in Criminal cases (Facing trial or acquittal). Ten types of scenario have been analysed and procedure has been prescribed in case of each situation for the authorities concerned to follow. We are aware that the present case of the Applicant relates to the year 2002 when the said SO was not in existence. Though the SO 398/2010 may not be applicable for the present case, nonetheless, it is apt to recognize the relevant provisions of the SO dealing with the issues of the present OA:-
3) If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal cases(s), complaint case(s), preventive proceedings etc. and the case is pending investigation or pending trial, the candidature will be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the case. After the courts judgment, if the candidate is acquitted or discharged, the case will be referred to the Screening Committee of the PHQ comprising of Special Commissioner of Police/Administration, Joint Commissioner of Police, Headquarters and Joint Commissioner of Police/Vigilance to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police.
4) If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal case(s), complaint case(s) preventive proceedings etc. both in the application form as well as in the attestation form but was acquitted or discharged by the court, his/her case will be referred to the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police. xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx 6) Such candidates against whom chargesheet in any criminal case has been filed in the court and the charges fall in the category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though later acquitted or acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or the witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person(s), he/she will generally not be considered suitable for government service. However, all such cases will be judged by the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess their suitability for the government job. The details of criminal cases which involve moral turpitude may kindly be perused at Annexure A.
17. The Annexure-A to the said SO catalogues 12 categories of serious offences including moral turpitude. We find from the Criminal case in which the Applicant was acquitted, the charges inter alia included the charge u/s 307 and 325 IPC which are serious offences coming under Category No.8 dealing with offences affecting the human body. It is noted that the present case has all the ingredients of three situations indicated above. The ingredients are namely; (a) the Applicant was involved in a criminal case; (b) he was acquitted in the said criminal case; (c) the Applicant disclosed the above criminal case and acquittal in his Application and Attestation Forms; (d) one of the charges against him was serious offence and (e) the Screening Committee considered the Applicants case and found him unsuitable for the post.
18. We may at this stage advert to some of the judgments relied on by the Applicant. In Sandeep Kumars case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court considered the case of Respondents concealment of his criminal case which was compromised resulting in his acquittal much before the Respondents application for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) on the basis of which his candidature was cancelled after service of Show Cause Notice. He filed an OA before this Tribunal which was dismissed and on appeal Honble High Court of Delhi held the cancellation of candidature as illegal. The appellant moved the Honble Supreme Court in the said Civil Appeal which was decided on 17.03.2011 by dismissing the same. We distinguish this judgment as it was qua the Respondent and would not be fully applicable in the present OA. Our close study of the judgments in Omveer Yadavs case (supra), Ram Het Meenas case (supra), Jai Prakashs case (supra), Sunil Kumars case (supra) and Dinesh Kumars case (supra) and that of this Tribunal in Samraj Singhs case (supra) convince us that each is different from the other and those cases are dissimilar in the facts and circumstances of the present OA. In the present case, the Respondents having considered all the grounds of the Applicant including the plea of discrimination and have come to the conclusion that the Applicant was not suitable for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police and passed a detailed order.
19. Respondents have taken the stand that their case gets support from the ratio laid by Honbel Apex Court in Sushil Kumars case (supra) whereas the Applicant submitted that the judgment is not applicable as the Respondent in the said case did not disclose, rather concealed his involvement in the criminal case in the Application and Attestation Forms whereas in the present OA, the Applicant has given information in the forms and was acquitted. We may dwell on the above diametrically opposite stands of the parties on the judgment in Sushil Kumar case (supra). While allowing the appeal, the Honble Apex Court in the said case has held that the discharge on acquittal of a person under criminal offence has nothing to do with denial of appointment to him on the ground of undesirability based upon the antecedents of candidates. That was not a case of suppression of material information and making false statement in the application/attestation form but was a case where the appointment was denied to the respondent on account of his antecedents record where he was involved in a criminal case but acquitted by the competent court. That was a case where the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, he filed OA in the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the Character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the directions for reconsideration of the case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.
20. It is trite law that the appointing authority or the employer has the right to consider the desirability and suitability of the candidature of an applicant in public service/ employment. Verification of the character and antecedents of the applicant is one of the important criteria in the selection process to test whether the applicant is suitable for employment in the Public Service, more specifically for the post. This is in addition to the consideration of an applicants qualifications and experience and even after his provisional selection. Even if the Applicant is found to be physically fit, passed the written test, in possession of the requisite qualification and experience and has been provisionally successful, yet he may be denied appointment if verification of his character and antecedents provides such information which does not convince the employer/appointing authority to offer the employee, the ultimate outcome will warrant cancellation of his candidature.
21. On the other hand, the involvement in a criminal case, per se, is not a disqualification for appointment/public employment. Had it been so, it would have been sufficient to state in the Advertisement/Application form that the person involved in any criminal case (even if acquitted) is not eligible for appointment and the person so involved would not be allowed to compete in the selection/recruitment process. What is required to be seen in such cases is not the mere involvement in the criminal case but actually the conduct, character and antecedents as exhibited by ones alleged action based on which an objective view has been taken as to the desirability and suitability for inducting him into service. For this purpose, the candidates are required to disclose on their own their involvement in any criminal case in the past so as to facilitate the verification of their character and antecedents by the prospective employer. The act of concealing the requisite information in this regard adversely reflects upon the character and antecedents of the person concerned and this by itself is taken as a ground sufficient to cancel the candidature of delinquent candidate even if he is otherwise qualified for appointment to the post in question. The present case is not a case of concealment of criminal case in the Application and Attestation Forms but the case of involvement in a criminal case where the Applicant has been acquitted. The acquittal, of course, in the present case, has taken place as the material witnesses have turned hostile.
22. Between these two extremes, there are large number of cases with different dimensions. On the one hand, verification of the character and antecedents of the candidate for appointment is not an empty formality for he cannot claim that he be appointed to the post on the basis of his qualification and performance in the selection process notwithstanding the outcome of the verification process of his character and antecedents. On the other hand, a persons candidature need not be thrown out solely on account of his involvement in a criminal case if he is otherwise found fit for such appointment as he is further required to pass the suitability test with reference to his character and antecedents in the past the outcome of which should be such as not to render him undesirable for induction in public employment. The appointing authority is required to examine this aspect in a pragmatic and objective manner so as to take a decision in the matter based on the relevant facts and circumstances of a given case. A candidate needs to be given a fair consideration. The decision of the appointing authority in such a case should not be arbitrary.
23. With the backdrop of the above, we refer to the facts of the parent OA. The impugned order, minutes of the Screening Committee and the Trial Court order will be relevant.
24. At this stage, we may refer to the Respondents letter dated 31.1.2006 which is the subject of adjudication in the present OA. The said letter reads as follows :-
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE : DELHI No.XII/(24)/04/2732/SIP(PHQ) dated New Delhi the 31/1/2006 To Sh. Vinod Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, Village & PO Ismaila, 11 Biswa, Distt. Rohtak (Haryana), PIN-124517.
Subject: Honble High Court of Delhis judgment dated 28.11.2005 in CWP No.8026-27/05 GNCT of Delhi Vs. Vinod Kumar reg. appointment in Delhi Police as Const. (Exe.).
Sir, I am directed to inform that you were provisionally selected as Const. (Exe.) in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2002 against Roll No.403754, subject to verification of your character and antecedents etc. It was found that you were charged u/s 148/149/307/325/506 IPC & 25 Arms Act, PS Sampla (Haryana). You were arrested on 13.12.2000 i.e. after six months from the date of incident and your conduct of evading arrest on any pretext is also unjustified in the eyes of law, but subsequently acquitted of the charges by the Honble Court vide order dated 05.03.02.
You have been acquitted of the charges as the eyewitnesses in the case were examined during the trial of the case turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution. The complainant was expired, hence could not be examined. Your acquittal is not on merits and as such you have been found not suitable in Delhi Police and your candidature was cancelled by the DCP/2nd Bn. DAP vide order No.8357/Rectt.Cell (R-I) 2nd Bn. DAP dated 28.08.03 after giving a Show Cause Notice. Aggrieved by the same you filed OA No.2301/03-Vinod Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. The same was allowed by the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide common order dated 24.12.04. Against the order of the Honble CAT, department filed the CWP No.8026-27/05 in the Honble High Court of Delhi. The Honble High Court of Delhi vide common order dated 28.11.05 remitted back the case to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to appreciate the nature and gravity of the offence in which you were involved and the manner in which you were acquitted and decide your appointment to the post of Const. (Exe.) In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Honble High Court of Delhi dated 28.11.2005 in 19 CWPs titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar + 18 others, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi considered your case in detail keeping in view the nature of your involvement, gravity of the offence, the judgment of the Criminal Court, grounds of acquittal as well as in comparison with the cases of Rajesh Kumar and Braham Pal and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.96 in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5340 of 1996 DAD Vs. Sushil Kumar and found that you were involved in a heinous offence of rioting and attempt to murder and your involvement is of such a grievous in nature, that it makes you unfit for a disciplined force like Delhi Police.
Hence, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi has rejected your appointment in Delhi Police as Const. (Exe.).
Yours faithfully, (AJAY CHADHA) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE:
HDQRS. DELHI
25. The above order was passed on the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee. The minutes of the said Committee meeting held on 26.12.2005 and 12.01.2006 in so far as the Applicant is concerned, is reproduced below :-
In pursuance of Honble High Court of Delhis common order dated 28.11.2005 in 19 CWPs titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar + 18 others against the common order 24.12.04 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi constituted a Committee consisting of Shri Ajay Chadha, Jt. C.P./HQ as Chairman and Shri A.K.Sinha, Jt. C.P./Vig. and Shri R.S. Ghumman, La to CP as Members to assist him to decide the candidature of 19 candidates who were provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Const.(Exe.) in Delhi Police.
The Committee examined all the 19 cases in detail keeping in view the nature of their involvement, gravity of the offence, the judgment of the Court and also the grounds of acquittal as well as in comparison with the cases the Rajesh Kumar and Braham Pal who were charged u/s 61/1/14 Ex. Act & 308 IPC respectively and allowed to join the Delhi Police as Const. (Exe.). Two meetings were held on 26.12.05 & 12.01.06 in this respect.
On 26.12.05, it was decided to obtain copies of FIRs from the concerned quarter in 08 Cases out of 19 Cases for proper scrutiny of the cases and copies of these FIRs were also thoroughly scrutinized before deciding the cases.
On 12.01.06, keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 04.10.96 in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No.5340 of 1996 DAD Vs. Sushil Kumar and cases of Rajesh Kumar and Braham Pal the Committee recommended the following action in the cases of these 19 candidates :- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Sl.No. Name of the candidate Brief of the case Remarks
5. Vinod Kumar He was charged u/s 148/149/307/325/506 IPC & 25/54/59 Arms Act, PS Sampla and was acquitted as all the witnesses turned hostile. The crime which he was involved is grievous in nature. He is involved in a heinous crime. His involvement is of such a nature that it makes him unfit for police force. Hence, not recommended
26. In the Criminal Case against the Applicant and 4 others in the FIR No.178 dated 24.06.2000 under Section 148, 149, 307, 323, 506 of IPC and 25 of the Arms Act in Sampla Police Station the complaint was filed by Wazir against the accused. All accused except the Applicant were arrested on 27.06.2000 and the Applicant was arrested on 13.12.2000. All the accused including Applicant pleaded not guilty of the charge. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Wazir, the complainant has expired and other witnesses were given up. Out of 10 witnesses, 3 were independent witnesses (PW7, PW8 and PW9) who did not support prosecution case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, stated in the order dated 5.3.2002 that statements of Official Witnesses were not corroborated by the independent witnesses and ultimately recorded that It is, thus, not safe to rely upon the statements of the official witnesses, and he, therefore, acquitted that all the accused including the Applicant of the charge. We note from the judgment that the acquittal of the Applicant is not clean and honourable one as the material witnesses turned hostile. Even the complainant was dead. The Applicant was involved in the serious offences like attempt to murder and even he was evading arrest for about 6 months. Obviously, these were taken into consideration by the Respondents before taking the decision of not offering him appointment.
27. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we come to the considered conclusion that there is no force in the Applicants contention that having been provisionally selected on the basis of his qualification and performance in the selection process, he is entitled for appointment notwithstanding his involvement in the criminal case which he has voluntarily disclosed in the application at the time of submitting his application and attestation forms. The conduct, character and antecedents of the Applicant has squarely gone against him.
28. The Applicants ground of his discrimination has been examined by the competent authority. We find logic and rationality in the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. It is noted that facts and circumstances of each case is different from the other. There is no wholesale and comprehensive similarity between those cases and the Applicants case. Just because the Sections of IPC under which some of those cases were registered are same/similar to those of the Applicant and just because some of them were acquitted as the Applicant was acquitted, similarity would be illogical and on this plea, discrimination claim, in our considered view, would be irrational. Even, the Respondents in the impugned order have indicated the casesof Rajesh Kumar and Braham Pal, and rejected the discrimination ground taken by the Applicant. Thus, this ground of discrimination falls flat.
29. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the impugned order dated 31.01.2006 cannot be viewed as arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, nor the same can be viewed as non-application of mind. We are of the considered opinion that the Applicant has not been able to establish his case and the present OA is not a fit case calling for our interference.
30. Resultantly, the OA being bereft of merits is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (G. George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /pj/