Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Snadeep Jhanjharia vs Govt. Of Nctd & Anr. on 24 July, 2017 cites

Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. vs Robin Singh on 25 August, 2010

10. Since the Petitioner's Original Application was clubbed along with a batch of other Original Applications, in some of which, the issue of suppression of information regarding involvement of the candidate in criminal cases had also been raised, the Petitioner preferred a R.A No. 204 of 2015 before the tribunal, pointing out that he had not concealed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case while filling in the attestation form and therefore prayed that the OA be allowed. The Tribunal vide its order dated 02.11.2015 once again considered the matter and, after holding that though it was correct that the Petitioner had not concealed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case while filling in the attestation form, still came to the conclusion that in view of the gravity of the charge against the Petitioner, coupled with the circumstantial factual background-including recovery of blood stained clothes at his instance, the Screening Committee could not have adjudged him suitable upon application of the criteria laid down in Para 42 of its order dated 21.05.2015. The Tribunal, therefore, was W.P.(C.) No.6012/2017 Page 5 of 13 of the view that remitting the matter back to the department for taking a fresh decision would be a useless formality and, accordingly , disposed of the review application with the direction that the factual position indicated in the order dated 21.05.2015 - that the Petitioner concealed his involvement in the criminal case in the attestation form, shall not be read as part of the order.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 53 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016

15. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the Petitioner, also reiterates that mere acquittal in a criminal case is not the conclusive test and the employer may consider all the relevant factors before taking an appropriate decision. The Apex Court while summarising its conclusions in Paras 30 and 38 of the judgment held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 1443 - A Mishra - Full Document

Deepa Tomar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 3 December, 2014

16. We have also considered the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Deepa Tomar (supra) on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that in this case, the Division Bench of this Court after considering the judgment whereby the employee had been acquitted, had come to a categoric conclusion that there was no evidence to prove the charges against her and, therefore, no aspersion could W.P.(C.) No.6012/2017 Page 12 of 13 be cast on her character regarding her alleged involvement in the criminal case. In view of these special facts alone the Court had come to the opinion that there was no justification for cancellation of the canditature of the Petitioner threin. Thus, it becomes evident that it is not the mere use of words „benefit of doubt‟, or otherwise, which is conclusive to decide as to whether the candidate should be considered for employment or not.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - N Waziri - Full Document

Commissioner Of Police vs Prem Singh Choudhary on 5 December, 2013

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and given our thoughtful consideration to the facts which have emerged from the record. Having considered the various judgments of the Apex Court, as also of this Court on the issue raised, we find that the common thread running through all these judgments is that, even in cases where a truthful declaration of concluded criminal case has been made, the employer still has a right to consider the antecedents of the candidate and cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate, merely because he stands acquitted in the criminal case. The character, conduct and antecedents have a direct bearing on the nature of employment, and the only requirement is that before deciding about the suitability of the candidate for employment, there has to be due consideration of the various aspects by the employer. What is relevant is that the employer must consider the nature of the acquittal, the attendant circumstances pertaining to the acquittal, the nature of crime and the circumstances under which it was allegedly committed, and a mere acquittal or discharge pursuant to a criminal proceeding cannot be taken as conclusive. It would be apt to refer to the observations of the Coordinate W.P.(C.) No.6012/2017 Page 7 of 13 Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Prem Singh Choudhary, W.P.(C) No.4304/2013:-
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - P Nandrajog - Full Document
1