Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Ramanuj Upadhyay
2012 Latest Caselaw 3973 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 09.07.2012

+       W.P.(C) 3926/2012

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR                             ..... Petitioners


                                          versus

RAMANUJ UPADHYAY                                               ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners   : Mr. S.P. Sharma and Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj
For the Respondent    : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj and Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                       JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, by the Commissioner of Police

and is directed against the order dated 7th March, 2012 in OA No. 2591/2011.

2. The respondent Ramanuj Upadhyay had applied for the position of Sub

Inspector (Exe.) Male with the Delhi Police in Phase-I of the Recruitment

conducted in 2009. The said respondent had cleared all the tests. However,

subsequent thereto a show cause notice had been issued to him on 25th April, 2011

calling upon him to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Sub

Inspector (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police in Phase-I of the recruitment conducted in

the year 2009 should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned in the show cause

notice. Those reasons essentially pertained to his alleged involvement in the

criminal case registered under FIR No. 139 dated 13th November, 2003 under

Sections 147/148/332/333/341/308 IPC r/w Section 7 of the Criminal Law

Amendment Act and Sections 2/3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act. The said FIR was registered at PS Mutthiganj, District Allahabad,

UP. It pertained to an agitation by students of Allahabad University where

hundreds of students had allegedly gathered and agitated on the issue of

reservation and had indulged in rioting and damaging public property.

3. It may be pointed out that the respondent while applying for the post of Sub

Inspector (Exe.) with Delhi Police, had not disclosed his alleged involvement in

the said criminal case in the application form. He had, however, disclosed the

same in the attestation form. At the time when respondent Ramanuj Upadhyay had

filed his application and submitted the attestation form, the said criminal case was

pending.

4. In view of Standing Order No. 371/2011 issued by Commissioner of Police,

Delhi, the case of such a candidate as the respondent, where the criminal case was

pending investigation or pending trial, the candidature is to be kept in abeyance till

the final decision of the case. After the court's judgment if the candidate is

acquitted or discharged, the case is to be referred to the Screening Committee of

the Police Headquarters to assess his suitability for the appoint in the Delhi Police.

5. This procedure, which has been prescribed in the said standing order, had

been followed. Subsequently, the respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court in

Allahabad by an order dated 21st April, 2010. In the said order, it has been clearly

held that the respondent, who was one of the accused in that case, was not

involved in the said incident at all. It has been noted that on a careful analysis of

evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be established by the

prosecution that the accused, which included the respondent herein, were involved

in the alleged acts. Consequently, by virtue of the said order dated 21st April, 2010

all the accused including the respondent Ramanuj Upadhyay were acquitted of all

charges.

6. In view of the fact that the respondent had been acquitted in the said

criminal case, his case for appointment was sent before the Screening Committee

in view of the said guidelines prescribed in the said standing order. Thereafter, a

show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 25th April, 2011 wherein it has

been mentioned that the Screening Committee had examined the case of the

respondent in detail and had not approved his case for appointment in the Delhi

Police. It has been pointed out in the show cause notice that the Screening

Committee while considering the case of the respondent, kept in view the

attending circumstances, nature of offence, contents of FIR, nature of injuries, type

of weapon used, judgment, grounds of acquittal and the role attributed to the

respondent in the offence.

7. On receiving the said show cause notice, the respondent submitted his reply

on 3rd May, 2011 wherein he has specifically stated that he had been clearly

acquitted by the Trial Court and therefore, the factum of his name being mentioned

in the same FIR could not be held against him. However, disregarding the plea

taken by the respondent in his reply, the Dy. Commissioner of Police passed an

Order dated 16th June, 2011 whereby the candidature of the respondent was

cancelled. The cancellation order specifically indicated as under:-

"All his written and oral submission in details have been considered and found that the candidate was named in FIR for his involvement in a violent agitation/rioting, damaging public property, assaulting, causing simple/grievous injuries to public servant as well as press reporters and doing an act amounting to attempted culpable homicide. Such act is highly undesirable. His mob mentality and indulging in violent activities without fear of law of land renders him unsuitable for appointment in Delhi Police where the highest standards of discipline are maintained. As such, the candidature of the candidate Ramanuj Upadhyay, Roll No. 727227 for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, 2009(Phase-I) is hereby cancelled with immediate effect."

8. It is obvious from the facts as indicated above that the sole reason as to why

the respondent's candidature has been cancelled was the fact that his name found

mention in the said FIR. We have, time and again, reiterated that once a person has

been acquitted in a criminal case, the factum of his name being mentioned in FIR

cannot stand in the way of his employment with the Delhi Police. Here, we find

that although the respondent had been clearly acquitted after a full fledged trial by

the Trial Court, the petitioner still took into account the fact that his name has been

mentioned in the FIR and concluded that, he had been involved in the alleged

incident. This course of conduct is clearly untenable. It was open for the

Screening Committee and for that matter the petitioner to have rejected the

candidature of the petitioner on some other valid ground based on some other

inquiries made by them but they could not have cancelled the candidature of the

respondent solely on the ground that the petitioner's name found mentioned in the

said FIR which culminated in an acquittal by the criminal court.

9. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned

order passed by the Tribunal whereby the cancellation of the candidature has been

quashed.

10. As we have directed in the case of Devender Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of

Delhi in WP(C)No. 8731/2011 decided on 3rd March, 2012 and several other

similar matters, the petitioner is directed to issue an appointment letter to the

respondent within four weeks subject to his otherwise being fit and completing all

necessary formalities and requirements. The respondent would be entitled to

seniority as well as pay and allowances from the date he joins the service. We,

however, direct that the impugned order with regard to costs is set aside. Subject to

these modifications, the Tribunal's order is upheld and the writ petition, to that

extent, is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 09, 2012 rs