Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. vs Jagbir Singh
2009 Latest Caselaw 367 Del

                                 Unreportable

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                         W.P.(C) No. 724 of 2009

%
                                       Decided on : February 04,2009


Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.          . . . Petitioners

                   through :               Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.

              VERSUS

Jagbir Singh                               . . . Respondent

                     through               Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.


CORAM :-
   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

       1.     Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
              to see the Judgment?
       2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?
       3.     Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?

A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

1. The respondent herein applied for the post of Constable (Executive)

in Delhi Police pursuant to advertisement issued for recruitment to

the said post in the year 2006 by the petitioner herein.

2. In the application submitted by the respondent against the column as

to whether he was involved in any criminal case at any point of time,

he had given the answer: "NIL". However, thereafter of his own and

before even the selection was made, he sent a letter dated 27.11.2006

W.P.(C) No. 724 of 2009 Page 1 stating that he had omitted to give the details of a criminal case

instituted against him and informed the petitioner about his

involvement in a criminal case i.e. FIR No. 40/2003 dated 13.02.2003

under Section 308, 340 and 323, IPC, P.S. Alipur, which was

registered against him on 28.08.2003 and he was acquitted in the said

case on 10.03.2004. It is clear from the above that when the petitioner

had applied for the said post in the year 2006, he had already been

acquitted from the said case.

3. After this information was given by the respondent, the petitioner

served upon the respondent show-cause notice dated 15.06.2007

alleging that the respondent had not disclosed the aforesaid facts

while filling the application form and it amounted to concealment of

material facts and furnishing false information. On this, he was

served with show-cause as to why his candidature be not cancelled.

The respondent submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory

and vide orders dated 13.07.2007, the candidature of the respondent

for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police was

cancelled.

4. The respondent challenged this action by filing OA before the

Tribunal which has been allowed vide judgment dated 25.07.2008.

The Tribunal has concluded, taking note of the aforesaid facts, that

there was no willful default on the part of the respondent which was

clear from the fact that the respondent suo motu, even before filling of

W.P.(C) No. 724 of 2009 Page 2 the attestation form, had given the information. Thus, there was no

deceit played by the respondent and there was no mala fide or ulterior

motive. In such a situation, concluded the Tribunal, the candidature

of the respondent could not have been cancelled and the Tribunal for

this purpose relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of

Kripal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 12565/2004

decided on 31.07.2006 and other judgments.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioners

herein had referred and relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court

in Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar (1996 (11) SCC 605),

wherein the Apex Court held that antecedents of a candidate could

be looked into for cancelling the candidature and the ratio of the said

judgment has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. In the

present case, there was serious charge under Section 308 framed

against the respondent in the aforesaid case and the judgment of the

Criminal Court would reveal that respondent was acquitted only

because the witnesses were turned hostile. He, thus, submitted that

having regard to the pronouncement in Sushil Kumar (supra), it was

open to the petitioner to take these facts into consideration and cancel

the candidature.

5. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the aforesaid submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts of this case. There is no

quarrel regarding the principles of law laid down in Sushil Kumar

W.P.(C) No. 724 of 2009 Page 3 (supra). What is important in the present case is that the candidature

of the respondent was not cancelled on account of alleged

antecedents. On the contrary, the only reason for cancelling the

candidature was that the respondent had concealed the fact

regarding his involvement in a criminal case deliberately. It is clear

from show-cause notice dated 15.06.2007 in which it was inter alia

stated as under:

"On scrutiny of Application Form filled up by you on 24.03.2006, it has been found that you did not disclose the facts of your involvement in the above said criminal case in the relevant column of Application Form and concealed the facts regarding your involvement in a Crl. Case deliberately by mentioning "Nil" despite clear warning given at the top of the form that furnishing of any false information will be treated as disqualification. Later-on, you have disclosed your involvement in the above said Crl. Case in the relevant columns of the Attestation Form filled up by you on 07.12.2006 that a criminal case FIR No. 40/2003 U/S 308/341/323 IPC was registered and you are acquitted on 10.03.2004 in the above said case by the Hon'ble Court. Further, you have submitted an application dated nil in this office on 27.11.2006 stating therein that when you are studying in a college a quarrel had taken place and the above said criminal case was registered against you. Thus, you have concealed the facts of the above said criminal case deliberately at initial stage in the application form with malafide intention and tried to seek appointment in Delhi Police by adopting deceitful means, which amounts to grave misconduct on your part. The concealment of facts at initial stage clearly reflects you malafide intention."

6. There is not even a whisper in the entire show-cause notice regarding

the antecedents of the respondent. The entire allegation predicates

on the concealment. The respondent was thus supposed to answer

this allegation only and he had submitted the explanation pleading

W.P.(C) No. 724 of 2009 Page 4 that there was no deliberate or intentional for concealment of facts.

Even while cancelling the candidature of the respondent by the

impugned order, the only reason is given is the concealment of facts

regarding involvement of the respondent in the criminal case. When

the purported antecedents of the respondent is not the foundation of

the impugned order, it is not permissible for the petitioner to justify

the order of termination on this extraneous ground when the said

order is challenged in a Court of law. The law on this aspect is well

settled in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief

Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. AIR 1978 Supreme Court

851. The Supreme Court held that an administrative order is to be

defended on the basis of reasons contained therein and no additional

reasons can be supplemented or pressed.

7. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and dismiss

the same in limine.

(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE February 04, 2009.

pmc




W.P.(C) No. 724 of 2009                                                 Page 5