Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police & Anr. vs Sh. Manoj Kumar on 7 December, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7th December, 2011.
+ W.P.(C)8533/2011
% COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. .......Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.P. Sharma with Mr. Ashwani
Bhardwaj, Adv.
Versus
SH. MANOJ KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 13th September, 2011 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench allowing the OA 532/2011
preferred by the respondent under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with all
consequential benefits including seniority and notional promotion etc. except
back wages.
2. The respondent was selected for the post of Constable (Executive) in
the recruitment held by the petitioner in the year 2009. The selection was
subject to verification of character and antecedents. The petitioner during the
said verification discovered that the respondent, while filling up the
application form for the post, had deliberately concealed his involvement in
a criminal case FIR 26/2004 dated 11th February, 2004 u/s 341/323/324/34
IPC of Police Station Manoharpur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. According to
the petitioner also, the said case was disposed of as compromised and the
respondent acquitted vide order dated 12th March, 2004 i.e. just one month
after the FIR. The petitioner nevertheless issued notice to show cause to the
respondent for having practiced concealment and thereafter cancelled his
candidature.
3. The Tribunal has noted that at the time of FIR, the respondent was
studying in class XI; that the incident was of a scuffle between the boys with
cross complaints/FIRs having been lodged; that the respondent had neither
received any notice from the concerned Police Station nor was he ever called
to the Police Station. The explanation of the respondent in the reply to the
notice to show cause was that he had forgotten about the incident and as
such did not mention the same while filling up the form in the year 2009.
4. The Tribunal has allowed the OA preferred by the respondent relying
on the recent dicta of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v.
Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644.
5. We are pained to see that the petitioner, inspite of our having in the
recent past dismissed a number of petitions preferred against similar orders,
continues filing these petitions. We have in our orders dated 2nd November,
2011 in W.P.(C) 7808/2011 titled Commissioner of Police v. Naveen
Kumar Mandiwal and in W.P.(C) No.7472/2011 titled Jai Singh v. GNCTD
as also in subsequent order dated 1st December, 2011 in W.P.(C)
No.8453/2011 titled Commissioner of Police v. Ankit Kalawant reiterated
that the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar has adopted a reformative
approach and held that indiscretion during childhood and/or youth cannot be
allowed to mar the future and has to be viewed in the correct perspective.
We have rather in our judgment dated 22nd November, 2011 in W.P.(C) No.
8223/2011 titled Rajesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Police also noticed
that the petitioner itself in its "Policy for deciding cases of candidates
provisionally selected in Delhi Police, involved in criminal cases (facing
trial or acquitted)" framed vide Standing Order No.398/2010 dated 23rd
November, 2010 has brought about a change.
6. The present case is squarely covered by the dicta in Sandeep Kumar.
The incident was not only during the childhood of the respondent but hardly
grave; the FIRs appear to have been got registered in the heat of the moment
and withdrawn/settled/compromised as soon as the tempers cooled down.
Such incident cannot qualify to be of such a nature as to disentitle the person
from employment in future.
7. We accordingly dismiss the petition. We refrain ourselves from
imposing any costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 7, 2011
pp..
