Pintu Singh Yadav vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7154 Del

$~4
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Date of Decision: December 13, 2012

+                         WP(C) 7748/2012

       PINTU SINGH YADAV                            ..... Petitioner
                Represented by: Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate.

                                  versus

       UOI & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
                 Represented by: Mr.Amrit Pal Singh, Advocate.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner was born in the year 1991 in a village named Jayantidas Pur in District Ghazipur, U.P. He was born in a landless family having a caste which is notified as an OBC.

2. With respect to an FIR lodged on September 30, 2007 by one Baily Devi, along with his brothers and father, the petitioner was named as an accused for having committed offences punishable under Section 323/325/504/506(2)/34 IPC. After investigation was over a challan was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate resulting in Crl.Case No.5648/2008 being taken cognizance of by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

3. Applying for the post of a Constable (Driver) in CISF on January 1, 2011, the petitioner cleared the recruitment process resulting in letter offering appointment being issued to him on December 16, 2011.

4. While filling the application form, the petitioner admittedly

withheld information asked for having a bearing on his character verification i.e. the information sought : Whether the applicant was an accused before any Court? But when letter offering appointment was issued and required to fill up the verification roll, the petitioner duly intimated and supplied the documents informing of his being an accused.

5. The petitioner stood acquitted on January 12, 2012 and he informed even said fact to the department, but unfortunately vide impugned order dated January 23, 2012 his services were terminated inasmuch as letter offering appointment was cancelled.

6. As per the petitioner he was trapped in a false case.

7. But the allegation against the petitioner, urges learned counsel for the respondent, is of withholding relevant information when he applied for the job.

8. It is true that while applying for the job the petitioner withheld a relevant information, but he volunteered the same before he joined and after he was issued letter offering appointment.

9. The facts of the instant case are identical to the ones which were considered by the Supreme Court in CA No.1430/2007 Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar decided on March 17, 2011, where the Supreme Court highlighted that young people often commit indiscretions because youth will always be youth and young people are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people do and hence the judicial approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than brand them as criminals for rest of their life; modern approach is to reform a person instead of branding the person as a criminal all his life. In said case Sandeep Kumar was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC.

10. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Sandeep

Kumar's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, deciding WP(C) No.8223/2011 Rajesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Police, as per decision dated November 22, 2011 quashed similar order passed pertaining to Rajesh Kumar who was accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 323/324/34 IPC.

11. The order acquitting the appellant would reveal that as per the complainant, Ram Janam and his sons Jaggi, Tileshwar and Pintu i.e. the petitioner along with one Rakesh son of Jaggi and Chandrama son of Lalu attacked her husband Ram Baran and when she and her daughter went to save her husband even they received injuries. As per the complaint Ram Janam had abused her husband while assaulting him and had threatened to kill him and that he had snatched the mangalsutra and the earrings of her daughter Rita. The decision would reveal that there was no evidence of the complainant and her daughter being injured. Her husband was found to be having a fracture on a finger of the left hand.

12. We are noting as aforesaid to bring out that in India there is a tendency to implicate all family members even when a trivial incident takes place involving two members of two families. As per the complaint the assailants were six in number and all of them were armed. As per the complaint Ram Janam was exhorting his cohorts to kill her husband. This version does not tally with one injury on the person of the husband of the complainant and no injuries on the complainant and her daughter.

13. For parity of reasoning in Sandeep Kumari's case (supra) and Rajesh Kumar's case (supra) we dispose of the writ petition quashing the impugned order dated January 23, 2012 and direct petitioner to be reinstated in service but without any back-wages, which we deny for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner approaching us after over 10 months and secondly for the reason, even the petitioner is at fault by withholding an

information which had a bearing on his character verification. Save and except denial of back-wages, the petitioner would be entitled to all other consequential benefits such as seniority and service to be reckoned for purposes of pension and notional increment.

14. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE DECEMBER 13, 2012 dkb