Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Brief facts are relevant; so are enumerated. Applicant pursuant to recruitment of Constables in Delhi Police in the year 2008 had applied for the post and after qualifying the selection procedure he was provisionally selected to the post, subject to verification of character antecedents. While filling up the application and attestation forms, applicant has disclosed the factum of two criminal cases registered against him, being CC-918/2005 under Sections 147/148/325/323/506 IPC in which he was acquitted on 1.9.2007 by the Court of Upper Judicial Magistrate, Hapur. Also disclosed the factum of criminal case registered under Sections 308/504 of IPC where on a judgment by Upper District and Session Judge on 23.4.2009 he had been acquitted of the offences. Instead of being appointed, applicant was served with a show cause notice relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in DAD v. Sushil Kumar (Civil Appeal No.13232 of 1996 [arising out of SLP (C) No.5340 of 1996]) decided on 4.10.1996 and giving details of the criminal cases that the facts of the case or the allegations constituting offences after being enumerated despite the court has not found the applicant as unfit in any of the cases had acquitted the applicant. Circumstances have been examined to establish that the applicant had played active role in beating and causing injuries to the complainant. As such, his crime shows propensity in indulgence without fear of law. Applicant replied to the show cause notice in detail and by citing law that the acquittal is on merit and after it any involvement in the criminal offence being obliterated, applicant is not unfit to be appointed in Delhi Police, which he has qualified otherwise on his own merit. The competent authority in response to the show cause notice without dealing with the contentions of the applicant recorded the following observations to cancel the candidature of the applicant:

11. Delhi Police is governed by Delhi Police Act, 1978 where appointments of subordinate ranks, including Constable, are regulated by Section 12 of the Act, 1978. However, Section 147 of the Act authorizes Administrator, i.e., Lt. Governor to frame rules for recruitment and all other conditions of service of the members of the Delhi Police, which includes the post of Constable. Accordingly, Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 have into come being where the appointment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male is provided under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1980. Rule 9 (vi) of the Rules, 1980 authorizes the Commissioner of Police to frame standing orders prescribing application forms and detailed procedure to be followed for conducting physical efficiency, physical measurement written tests and viva voce for regulating such a recruitment. However, as a condition precedent, Rule 25 of the Rules, 1980 provides as under:-

22. What is discerned from the reading of the above ratio is that one, who deliberately withheld on suppression certain information, respondents are within their right to either cancel the candidature or terminate the services of the applicant, which would not be interfereable in judicial review by the Court.

23. However, another aspect of the matter is that the appointing authorities, more particularly in the instant case the Delhi Police, are not acting as quasi judicial authorities but are acting as administrative authorities within their domain to appoint a selectee, who has no indefeasible right of appointment. What is required for adjudging his suitability is laid down under Section 25 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and the only condition precedent for such appointment is that on attestation form if something is disclosed, the person should be found to have born a good moral character and there is nothing pending against him.

27. A statutory power in discretion cannot be exercised on absolute and unfettered terms and a discretion has to be exercised judiciously by the administrative authorities.

28. In our Constitution, three separate wings, i.e., Judiciary, Executive and Legislation are independent in their functioning and are advised and cautioned by various pronouncements of the Apex Court not to overlap or interfere in respective domains. No doubt, as a Commissioner of Police or any other subordinate officer, respondents are not the competent authorities to take a decision otherwise as to whether the acquittal of the applicant in criminal case is bad in law or despite his involvement he has been let-off to recommend filing of an appeal against the order of punishment. This domain is exclusively available with the prosecution branch of Government of NCT of Delhi and neither in the Delhi Police Act nor in the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 this power has been delegated to them. Exercise of such power to scrutinize the judgment and by reading between the lines to hold a finding of propensity in crime by the applicant despite acquittal from such an act is an act wholly without jurisdiction. Administrative authorities being creature of statute have to remain within its four corners while exercising their respective powers/discretion.