Vikram Rahul vs. Delhi Police & Ors
Date of Order:
31st May, 2023
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta & Mr. Justice V. Kameshwar Rao
Petitioner: Vikram Rahul
Respondent: Delhi Police & Ors
The petition filed by the petitioner in this case is to challenge the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the recruitment of the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector (Exe) in Delhi Police. The order had kept the recruitment pending until the final outcome of the proceedings arising from an FIR (First Information Report) filed against the petitioner.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 319
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 313
- Section 323
- Section 406
- Section 498A
- Section 506
- Section 34
- The petitioner had applied for and been granted the position of Sub Inspector with the Delhi Police after passing all necessary tests and examinations. However, the petitioner revealed the status of a FIR that his sister-in-law had filed against him during the verification process.
- The police filed a charge-sheet in the matter, but because the petitioner was included in Column 12 of the charge-sheet, he was not summoned.
- A show-cause notice was issued about the petitioner's candidature, and he responded in great detail. The Screening Committee looked into the situation, and it was advised that the petitioner's case be kept open until the criminal case's verdict. The respondents were told to take the petitioner's argument into account and provide a reasoned ruling when the petitioner sought the Tribunal.
- The petitioner was then instructed that his case would be kept pending until the criminal case's verdict was made. Another submission was submitted by the petitioner, but no reply was received. He subsequently submitted a request to the Tribunal to have the order suspending his appointment overturned, and the Tribunal decided on the request.
- Whether the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) is valid or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the petitioner argues that, the charges against the petitioner were not proven throughout the inquiry and that he was just identified as collateral accused in the FIR resulting from marriage issues. They claim that while the matter is pending, the petitioner shouldn't have to endure any further suffering.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the respondents supports the decision made by the Tribunal, arguing that it was made in accordance with standing directives from the Commissioner of Police and that delaying the appointment is appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the disciplined culture of the force.
- The Court accepts that the employer has the right to take the applicant's background and fitness into account even though the petitioner made a genuine declaration of the FIR. The Court emphasises that while evaluating fitness, the Competent Authority must take into account the nature of the offence, the evidence against the petitioner, and the surrounding circumstances.
- The Court also concluded that, to assess whether the petitioner was qualified, the Competent Authority should have looked at the specifics of the offence, the available evidence, and the surrounding circumstances. The Court advises that the authorities should apply certain latitude and judgement.
- However, In addition, the court orders the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the relevant office within a given time frame, provided that the petitioner satisfies all other requirements. The court vacates the earlier decisions that had delayed the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner is entitled to ancillary advantages, such as hypothetical seniority, and compensation will be due as of the date of joining. Hence, the petition is allowed by the Court.
In conclusion, the petitioner, who had applied for the position of Sub Inspector with the Delhi Police, faced a delay in his appointment due to a pending criminal case against him. However, the court found that the charges against the petitioner had not been proven, and he was only named as a collateral accused in the FIR related to a matrimonial dispute. The court emphasized the need for the Competent Authority to consider the nature of the offense, the available evidence, and the surrounding circumstances when evaluating fitness for the position. As a result, the court ordered the respondents to appoint the petitioner within a specified timeframe, along with ancillary benefits and compensation. Thus, the court allowed the petition and ruled in favor of the petitioner.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement