Gokul Ram Meena vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 179 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) 8620/2010

%                      Date of Decision: 13.01.2011

GOKUL RAM MEENA                                       .... Petitioner
                    Through Mr. V.K.Tandon, Adv.

                                Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                   .... Respondents
                Through Mr.Nirbhay Sharma, Advocate for
                         Mr. Anjum Javed, Advocate


CORAM:
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON‟BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be
     allowed to see the judgment? No
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?     Yes
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in
     the Digest? Yes



VEENA BIRBAL, J. (oral)
*

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 11.08.2010

passed in R.A. No. 209/2010 and order dated 04.05.2010 passed in

O.A. No. 2497/2009 both passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the

Tribunal‟) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for cancellation of

order dated 04.08.2009 issued by the respondents cancelling the

candidature of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Constable

Male (Executive) in Delhi Police has been rejected.

2. In the year 2008, an advertisement was issued by the

respondents wherein applications were invited for recruitment to the

post of Constable Male (Executive) in Delhi Police. Petitioner applied

for recruitment to the said post under ST category. He was put

through physical endurance and measurement test, written test,

interview. Petitioner was declared provisionally selected against Roll

No. 515945, subject to verification of character and antecedents, final

checking of documents and medical fitness.

On 15.07.2009, petitioner received a show cause notice from

respondents wherein it is stated that on receipt of his character and

antecedents report from DCP/Special Branch, Delhi it is revealed that

a criminal case FIR No. 45, dated 04.05.2007 u/s 143/341/323/354-

IPC, P.S. Thana Gazi, District Alwar (Rajasthan) was registered against

him. It is further stated that the said criminal case was decided by

the aforesaid Court on 01.06.2009 wherein petitioner and co-accused

persons were convicted for the offence u/s 143 IPC and were given

benefit u/s 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after admonishing.

For the offence u/s 323, 341, 354 and 451 IPC, they were acquitted as

the matter was compromised. It was also stated in the show cause

notice that the petitioner was involved in the case and had an active

role as such was unfit for Delhi Police and was asked to give reply to

show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Constable Male

(Executive) in Delhi Police be not cancelled. Petitioner gave a reply

on 28.07.2009 stating that there are judicial directions of the court

that conviction would have no adverse effect on petitioner as well as

one Shri Gopi Ram in future in their Government services or

otherwise. In view of above directions, the Government service of

petitioner would not be affected. The reply of the petitioner was not

found convincing by respondents as such vide order dated

04.08.2009 the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable

Male (Executive) in Delhi Police was cancelled.

3. Aggrieved with the same, petitioner filed an O.A. No. 2497/2009

before the Tribunal wherein petitioner had alleged that at the time of

filling up of the attestation form, petitioner had disclosed his

involvement in the criminal case. Petitioner pointed out about the

directions of criminal court which are stated above and contended

that respondents are not justified in cancelling his candidature.

4. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of this court in Satraj

Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.; 2007 IX AD (DELHI) 241 did not

interfere with the order of the respondents dated 4.8.2009 and also

observed that the said order had been passed after observing the

principles of natural justice. Aggrieved with the same, the present

petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the

candidature of the petitioner has been wrongly cancelled on the

ground that he was involved in a criminal case. It is contended that

vide judgment dated 1st June, 2009 of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Thana Gazi, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan), the petitioner was acquitted for

the offences under section 323/341, 354 and 451 IPC and as regards

conviction under Section 143 IPC is concerned, petitioner was given

benefit under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act and there is a

direction of the Court that it will not affect the future Government

service, as such the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is illegal.

It is admitted position that petitioner was not issued any

appointment letter and was only provisionally selected subject to

verification of character and antecedents. In the show cause notice

dated 15th July, 2009, the necessary details of criminal case given are

as under:-

"Sh.Rajinder Prasad s/o Shri Ram Chander Meena reported that on 3.5.2007 at abo ut 7.30/8.00 p.m. he was lying on cot and his wife Smt.Rampati was also sitting with him. Suddenly you along with Narayan, Bharal Lal S.o Ram Nath, Jella Ram S/o Sunder Lal all resident of Bal Ki Dhani, Mundiyawas, The. Thana Gazi Distt. Alwar (Raj.) having lathies in their hands came to his house and Pappu Ram, Ramesh, Narayan, Bharat Lal, Jella Ram assaulted the complainant with legs and fists. You along with Gopi Ram and Phelli Ram took his wife out side on the road and threw her chunni and torn her clothes. You and Gopi Ram caught hold her wife and Phelli Ram attempted to outrage her modesty. When the complainant and his wife raised alarm for rescue, Shri Umrao Khatik and Ramdhan Meena intervened the matter. During trial of the case, both the parties have compromised the matter u/s 323/341/354/451 IPC. The Hon‟ble Court found them guilty u/s 143 IPC and admonished all the accused by giving benefit u/s 3 of Probation of Offender Act vide

judgment dated 01.06.2009. Keeping in view of the above circumstances, it has been established that you were involved in the case and played an active role. The Hon‟ble Court found guilty of all the accused including you candidate u/s 143 IPC and admonished by giving benefit u/s 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Since the acquittal in the said case is not honorable and the offence involves grave moral turpitude, which makes you unfit for police force."

6. The stand of the petitioner is that when he submitted the

application form, the case registered vide aforesaid FIR was sub

judice against him in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Thana

Gazi. The petitioner had already mentioned about the case in the

application form. The said case has been decided on 1st June, 2009

by the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Thana Gazi, Distt. Alwar

(Rajasthan) wherein petitioner and co-accused persons are acquitted

u/s 323,341, 354 and 451 IPC due to compromise. The petitioner is

convicted u/s 143 IPC and the court has given the benefit of section 3

of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and it is ordered that in terms

of section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, the conviction would

have no adverse effect on petitioner and one Sh. Gopi Ram in future

in their Government service or otherwise. In view of the above

directions, respondents are not justified in cancelling his candidature.

The Tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter

in the light of judgment of this court in Satraj Singh Vs. Union of India

& ors reported in 2007 IX AD (Delhi) 241 wherein after relying on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Commandant, 20th Battalion, ITB

Police Vs. Sanjay Binjola reported in (2001) 5 SCC 317, it is held that

the directions issued by the Session Judge, Bikaner to the effect that

the conviction of the petitioner therein shall not have any adverse

effect on his service was held to be without jurisdiction and therefore

not binding on the respondents. Following the aforesaid judgment

the Tribunal has rejected the contention raised by the petitioner that

the direction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Thana Gazi,

Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan in judgment dated 1st June, 2009 to the effect

that the conviction of petitioner would have no adverse effect in

future in Government Service is not binding on the Tribunal.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Singhal Vs. The

Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank reported in (2010) IV LLJ 297

SC after taking note of various decisions on the issue, where after

conviction, a person was released on probation, has upheld the

dismissal of an employee who was convicted for an offence involving

mortal turpitude. Even in the said case, appellant therein was given

the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the

criminal court. If that is so, there is no reason to uphold the

contention of petitioner who is involved in a serious crime.

Further petitioner is seeking employment in Police which

requires utmost integrity, propriety and uprightness of character.

Considering the nature of offence, material on record, role of

petitioner therein and that there is no honorable acquittal, the

Screening Committee has not found him fit for the job. Petitioner was

undergoing selection process and was not issued any appointment

letter. In view of the judgment in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India

reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612, petitioner cannot claim any

indefeasible right of appointment.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we find no

illegality or irrationality in the order of the Tribunal. Present is not a

fit case in which we should interfere and grant relief to the petitioner

in exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

th JANUARY 13 , 2011 kks/ssb