Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police vs Anil Kumar on 13 July, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13.07.2012
+ W.P.(C) 4051/2012
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ... Petitioner
versus
ANIL KUMAR ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr V.K.Tandon
For the Respondent : Mr Ajesh Luthra
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi is
directed against the order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.1827/2011 whereby the said
Tribunal has set aside the order of cancellation of the candidature of the
respondent Anil Kumar for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male with the Delhi
Police.
2. The facts in brief are that for the recruitment carried out in the year 2009
(Phase-II) for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male with the Delhi Police, the
respondent Anil Kumar had made an application. This application was followed
by an attestation form filled in by the said Anil Kumar. In both, the application
form as well as the attestation form filled by the said Anil Kumar, the fact of his
alleged involvement in the criminal case arising out of the FIR No.190/2009
under Section 452/354/506 IPC registered at PS-Kosli, District Rewari, Haryana
had been mentioned.
3. The respondent Anil Kumar had been provisionally selected for the post of
Constable (Exe.) Male with the Delhi Police subject to satisfactory verification of
character, antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc.
Subsequently, the respondent Anil Kumar had been acquitted by the trial court at
Kosli in Criminal Case No.275/2009 by virtue of the judgment dated 17.05.2010.
A copy of the said judgment has been placed at page No.76 of the paper book and
it reveals that insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is
concerned that had already been compounded and therefore the trial proceeded
only in respect of the other allegations under Section 452/506 IPC. None of the
witnesses, namely, Dayaram- PW1 and the alleged victim Meera-PW2 supported
the prosecution version. The trial court came to the conclusion that there was
nothing on record to connect the accused with the offence for which he had been
chargesheeted. In these circumstances the respondent Anil Kumar was acquitted
in respect of the charges under Section 452/506 IPC as well. It is well known that
in view of Section 320(8) CrPC, compounding of an offence would have the
effect of an acquittal. Consequently, it can be inferred that the respondent Anil
Kumar had been acquitted in respect of the offences which were allegedly
committed by him.
4. However, despite the fact that the said Anil Kumar had been acquitted in
the circumstances mentioned above, a show cause notice was issued to him on
03.03.2011calling upon him to show cause as to why his candidature for the post
of Constable (Exe.) Male with the Delhi Police ought not to be cancelled in view
of the said criminal case which had been registered against him and in view of
the fact that the Screening Committee had not found him suitable for the said
post.
5. The respondent Anil Kumar replied to the said show cause notice and
indicated that the case which had been registered against him was false and
concocted and he had, in any event, been acquitted of all charges and therefore
the said criminal case cannot be held against him while considering his case for
appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male with the Delhi Police.
However, the submission made by the respondent Anil Kumar in his reply to the
said show cause notice was not accepted and the Deputy Commissioner of Police
by virtue of the order dated 22.03.2011 cancelled the candidature of the
respondent Anil Kumar for the said post.
6. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed the said Original Application
which has been allowed by the Tribunal.
7. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by
the Tribunal. First of all, the respondent Anil Kumar had clearly disclosed the
factum of registration of the criminal case in both his application form as well as
in the attestation form. Secondly, the said respondent had also been acquitted by
the trial court insofar as the offences under Section 452/506 IPC are concerned
and as regards the offence under Section 354 IPC the same had already been
compounded with the permission of the court in terms of the provisions of
Section 320 CrPC. The effect of all this would be that the respondent stood
acquitted of all charges against him.
8. Once the respondent Anil Kumar has been acquitted by the trial court, it
was not open to the petitioner to rely on the very same allegations and conclude
that his candidature be cancelled for his "involvement" in the criminal case. It
was open to the petitioner to have made other inquiries with regard to antecedents
and character of the respondent Anil Kumar and if any information with regard to
his unsuitability came to the knowledge of the petitioner then his candidature
could have been cancelled. But that is not the case here. The petitioner had solely
relied on the very same allegations which found mention in the FIR which had
culminated in the acquittal of the respondent Anil Kumar. That is not permissible.
9. The order of the Tribunal be complied with within four weeks from today.
10. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
JULY 13, 2012
mk
