Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors vs Rajesh Kumar on 13 April, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 13.04.2012
+ W.P.(C) 2057/2012
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
RAJESH KUMAR ..... Respondent
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2058/2012
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
DHERENDER KUMAR ..... Respondent
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2061/2012
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
RAJA RAM ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Sharma, Adv with Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)
1. These three petitions raise common issues and are being disposed of by this
judgment.
2. The common question is as to whether the services of the respondents could have
been terminated after having been appointed as a Constables (Executive) with the Delhi
Police merely on the ground that the said persons had not disclosed the fact of their
criminal involvements in the application form as well as in the attestation form submitted
by them.
3. Insofar as the respondent Rajesh Kumar is concerned, he was allegedly involved in
FIR No.138/95 which was registered under Sections 325/323/341 IPC. The said Rajesh
Kumar had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) on 22.11.2009 and had
submitted the attestation form on 03.05.2010. In neither of these, the said Rajesh Kumar
had disclosed that he had been involved in the said FIR. However, it must be noted that
prior to the submission of the application form and attestation form, the said Rajesh
Kumar had been acquitted, consequent upon the offences having been compounded, by an
order dated 14.10.1995.
4. Insofar as the respondent Dherender Kumar in concerned, there was an FIR 96/01
under Sections 147/323/504/506 IPC in which he was allegedly involved. However, he
stood trial and was acquitted by an order dated 20.07.2009. It is subsequent to this order
of acquittal that he applied for the post of Constable (Executive) on 21.11.2009 and
submitted the attestation form on 03.05.2010. As in the case of Rajesh Kumar, Dherender
Kumar also did not disclose in the application form/attestation form about his previous
involvements.
5. The respondent Raja Ram was also allegedly involved in FIR 333/07 under
Sections 292/323/452/506/34 IPC. However, he had been acquitted on 02.06.2008. It is
only thereafter that he had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) with the Delhi
Police and had also submitted his attestation form.
6. It is pursuant to the applications submitted by the said respondents that they were
subjected to tests and they were appointed as a Constables (Executive) with the Delhi
Police. However, subsequently when the authorities came to know about the
involvements of these respondents in the said FIRs, their services were terminated on the
sole ground that these involvements had been concealed by the respondents in their
application forms as well as in their attestation forms. We may, however, point out that
the termination orders by themselves did not indicate that this was the ground but, it is an
admitted position inasmuch as it has been stated in the counter affidavits filed before the
Tribunal that this was the ground for terminating the services of the said respondents.
7. By virtue of the impugned orders, the Tribunal, in each of these matters, set aside
the orders of termination following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar: (2011) 4 SCC 644 as also the
decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar in (WP(C) 8223/2011 decided on
22.11.2011).
8. We have also considered the very same aspect in detail, recently, in the case of
Devender Kumar Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (WP(C) 8731/2011,
decided on 30.03.2012). In that decision, we had considered the decision of the Supreme
Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra) as well as the following decisions of the Supreme
Court:-
(i) Ram Kumar v. State of UP and Ors., Civil Appeal No.7106/2011 decided
on 19.8.2011.
(ii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav: (2003) 3
SCC 437.
(iii) Delhi Administration And Others v. Sushil Kumar: (1996) 11 SCC 605.
(iv) R.Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police And Others: AIR 2008
SC 578.
(v) Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2008) 10 SCC 450.
(vi) Sushil Kumar Singhal v. The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank:
2010 (IV) LLJ 297 (SC)
9. We had also considered the following decisions of this Court:-
(i) Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Robin Singh 2010 (4) JCC
2821.
(ii) Commissioner of Police v. Naveen Kumar Mandiwaandl WP(C)
7808/2011 decided on 2.11.2011.
(iii) GNCT of Delhi And Another v. Dinesh Kumar WP(C) 5510/2010
decided on 11.11.2010
(iv) GNCT of Delhi And Another v. Subhash Chand WP(C) 5510/2010
decided on 11.11.2010.
(v) Delhi Police And Another v. Omveer Yadav WP(C) 12899/2009
decided on 19.4.2010
(vi) Government of NCT of Delhi And Another v. Jai Prakash WP(C)
3566/2010 decided on 24.5.2010
(vii) Government of NCT of Delhi And Another v. Daulat Ram WP(C)
734/2012 decided on 10.2.2012
(viii) Commissioner of Police v. Ranvir Singh WP(C) 6518/2011 decided
on 20.12.2011
(ix) Gokul Ram Meena v. Government of NCT of Delhi And Others:
177(2011) DLT 471 (DB).
10. The view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the
Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra) as also by us in Devender Kumar Yadav
(supra) and the other decisions considered therein.
11. Consequently, we uphold the orders of the Tribunal which are impugned in these
petitions.
12. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
13. There shall be no orders as to costs.
14. However, we make it clear that the respondents when they are taken back in
service would not be entitled to any back wages for the period they remained out of
service. The petitioners are granted three weeks' time to comply with the orders.
Dasti.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K.JAIN, J
APRIL 13, 2012
rb
