Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

On the basis of allegation which could not be sustaintiated in a court of law cannot be denie the benfit of appointment

Diganta Paul ,
  11 June 2012       Share Bookmark

Court :
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Brief :
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 1821/2011. The case pertains to the cancellation of the candidature of the respondent for the post of Constable (Executive) with the Delhi Police. The respondent had applied for the said post during the recruitments which took place in the year 2009. Both, in his application form as well as the attestation form, the respondent had clearly disclosed the pendency of a criminal case against him arising out of FIR No.114/2007 under Sections 307/504/506 IPC registered at P.S. Babri, District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
Citation :
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR..... Petitioners Versus SHANI KUMAR..... Respondent

 

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi

 

% Judgment delivered on 21.05.2012

 

+ W.P.(C) 3015/2012

 

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR..... Petitioners

 

Versus

 

SHANI KUMAR..... Respondent

 

Advocates who appeared in this case:

 

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shariq Mohammad.

For the Respondent: None

 

CORAM:

 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

 

JUDGMENT

 

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

 

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 1821/2011. The case pertains to the cancellation of the candidature of the respondent for the post of Constable (Executive) with the Delhi Police. The respondent had applied for the said post during the recruitments which took place in the year 2009. Both, in his application form as well as the attestation form, the respondent had clearly disclosed the pendency of a criminal case against him arising out of FIR No.114/2007 under Sections 307/504/506 IPC registered at P.S. Babri, District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.

 

2. The respondent was selected for the post on the basis of tests which were conducted. However, the said selection was provisional and was subject to verification. It was subsequently found that the respondent had been acquitted by the concerned trial court by virtue of an order dated 14.05.2010 after giving the respondent the benefit of doubt. However, despite the said acquittal, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent by the petitioners on 03.03.2011 calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned in the said show cause notice.

 

3. The purported reasons indicated in the said show cause notice pertained entirely to the said FIR and the contents of the complaint which resulted in the said FIR. It was pointed out in the purported reasons that the respondent’s case had been examined by a Screening Committee of the Police Headquarters constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to judge the nature of the respondent’s involvement in the said case. It was further pointed out that the Committee had observed that the respondent with others were found involved in a case of attempt to murder with deadly weapons and had even caused injuries to the complainant’s brother. It was noted in the said purported reasons that

 

“the accused apparently managed acquittal as due to their dreaded act, no one dared to depose against him and such type of person is unfit for police force”.

 

4. The respondent furnished a reply dated 14.03.2011 citing various precedents where after acquittal, the persons had been granted employment particularly after orders from the Tribunal as also of this Court. However, the petitioners did not accept the reply given by the respondent and passed an order dated 22.03.2011 cancelling the candidature of the respondent with immediate effect. The very same purported reasons which were given in the show cause notice have been reproduced in the order dated 22.03.2011 whereby the candidature of the respondent was cancelled. There is no other material other than the contents of the FIR on which the petitioners have relied to cancel the candidature of the respondent.

 

5. We feel that once the respondent had been acquitted after examination of all the witnesses, the complaint and all the contents of the FIR could be looked into for the purposes of cancelling the candidature of the respondent. This is not a case of technical acquittal in the sense that witnesses had not coming forward where the material witnesses had died etc. Hence, there was an acquittal after a full-fledged trial. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

 

6. Furthermore, the petitioners have also not conducted any independent inquiry with regard to the other antecedents of the respondent to assess his suitability for the position of Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police. What we find is that the order dated 22.03.2011 denies the benefit of appointment to the respondent on the basis of the very same allegations contained in the FIR which could not be substantiated in a court of law. That would, in our view, be highly unfair apart from the fact that such a stand has no backing of law.

 

7. We have in several similar cases, accepted similar views taken by the Tribunal. Two of them being:-

 

(i) Government of NCT of Delhi & another v. Dinesh Kumar: W.P.(C) 5527/2010 decided on 11.11.2010;

(ii) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Subhash Chand: W.P.(C) 5527/2010 also decided on 11.11.2010.

 

8. As a result, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

 

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J


 
"Loved reading this piece by Diganta Paul?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Civil Law
Views : 1464




Comments





Latest Judgments


More »