Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Delhi Police And Another v. Omveer Yadav WP(C) 12899/2009 decided on 19.4.2010, the respondent before this Court was selected for appointment as Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police. His candidature was however, cancelled on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case registered under Section 392/34 IPC in which he was discharged by the Magistrate on 24.11.2006. Despite his having disclosed these facts in the application form the cancellation of candidature was challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal which quashed the cancellation and directed the Delhi Police to appoint the respondent, if he was otherwise found fit. It was contended before this Court that a person who was accused in a case of robbery could not be permitted to work in Delhi Police. It was also contended that the respondent was not identified by the complainant probably on account of undue pressure from him. The petitioner before this Court relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Delhi Administration And Others v. Sushil Kumar: (1996) 11 SCC 605 and R.Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police And Others: AIR 2008 SC 578. Considering that the alleged involvement in that case was under Section 304/324/34 of IPC, the case of Sushil Kumar (supra) was distinguished. As regards the case of Radhakrishnan (supra), it was distinguished noticing that while submitting the application he had concealed the fact that he had been involved in the criminal case whereas the respondent before this Court had not concealed any material fact. In Government of NCT of Delhi And Another v. Jai Prakash WP(C) 3566/2010 decided on 24.5.2010, the respondent before this Court, while applying for employment with Delhi Police had disclosed that a case had been registered against him under Section 32/33 of the Forest Act, 1927 read with Section 379 of IPC and was in progress. On acquittal in the aforesaid case, the respondent informed the authorities accordingly. The acquittal was on account of the prosecution failing to establish its case through cogent or direct evidence. However, the candidature of the respondent as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police was cancelled, after his case had been examined by a Screening Committee constituted by Commissioner of Police, Delhi. In recommending cancellation of the candidature of the respondent, the Screening Committee relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar (supra). The cancellation of candidature was challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal which held in his favour. Dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi against the order of the Tribunal, this Court inter alia held as under: