Nawab Khan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2612 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Judgment delivered on 20.04.2012

+      W.P.(C) No.2260/2012 & CM No.4848/2012


NAWAB KHAN                                            ...      Petitioner

                                        versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                          ...      Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner    :   Mr. Arun Sharma and Ms. Mamta Tandon, Advs.
For the Respondents   :   Ms. Ferida Satarwal, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                          JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2011 passed in

OA 2562/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi. The petitioner had filed the said original application seeking the setting

aside of the order dated 11.06.2011 whereby his candidature was cancelled after

the same has been considered by the Screening Committee which has also given an

opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why the candidature should not be

cancelled. The petitioner had also sought a declaration from the Tribunal that he

was entitled to be appointed as a Constable (Executive) (Male) in Delhi Police on

the basis of recruitment held in the Year 2009.

2. The petitioner had applied for the said post of Constable (Executive) (Male)

in Delhi Police in the recruitment held in the Year 2009 (phase-II). He was

selected, subject to verification of character, antecedents, medical fitness and final

checking of documents etc. The petitioner had, in his application, disclosed that he

has earlier been involved in the criminal case registered by virtue of FIR No.134/08

under Sections 323/341/324/354/326/307/34 IPC as also under Sections 3(i)(xi)

and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 registered at P.S. Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. The petitioner,

however, had been acquitted by the Court by an order dated 14.11.2008. Insofar as

the offences under Sections 323/324/341 and 354 IPC are concerned, the acquittal

was on the basis of a compromise entered into between the prosecutrix and the

petitioner. As regards the other offences under Sections 326 and 307/34 IPC and

under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989, the petitioner was acquitted on the ground that all the prosecution witnesses

had turned hostile and there was no witness to support the prosecution story.

3. The case of the petitioner was examined by the Screening Committee which

included the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. After issuing the show cause notice to

the applicant on 14.03.2011 as to why his candidature for the post of Constable

(Executive) in the Delhi Police should not be cancelled, the Screening Committee

came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not suitable for police service.

Thereafter, the Appointing Authority, after taking into consideration the reply

submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and on the basis of the

recommendation made by the Screening Committee, by virtue of an order dated

11.06.2011 cancelled the candidature of the petitioner for the post of a Constable

(Executive) (Male) in the Delhi Police with immediate effect.

4. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the said cancellation of

candidature and had primarily placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in

the case of Commissioner of Police & Others v. Sandeep Kumar: (2011) 4 SCC

644. In that decision itself, the Supreme Court had distinguished the case before it

from other cases where serious offences were involved. The Supreme Court was of

the view that since the offences alleged against the respondents therein were not

serious offences like murder, dacoity and rape, a more lenient view could be taken

in the matter. Therefore, there is a distinction which has to be kept in mind

between grave and serious offences on the one hand and offences which are not of

a very serious in nature, on the other. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the

offences in which the petitioner was allegedly involved included not only the

charge under Section 307, but, also the charge under Section 354 IPC, which is an

offence of a grave nature involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the case of the

petitioner is clearly distinguishable from that of Sandeep Kumar (supra). We may

also note that the acquittal of the petitioner insofar as the offence under Section 354

IPC is concerned, was not on merits but was based on a compromise with the

prosecutrix.

5. The Tribunal has correctly appreciated the distinction between the gravity of

offences involved in the present case and that before the Supreme Court in the case

of Sandeep Kumar (supra). The Tribunal has also correctly placed reliance on the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration through its

Chief Secretary & Others v. Sushil Kumar: (1997) SCC [L&S] 492.

6. We see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal as it is in

conformity with the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court as also of this

Court. The writ petition is dismissed.

7. There shall be no orders as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J APRIL 20, 2012 rb