Commissioner Of Police And Anr. vs Shani Kumar
2012 Latest Caselaw 3375 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Judgment delivered on 21.05.2012


+      W.P.(C) 3015/2012

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR                              ..... Petitioners
                                                   versus

SHANI KUMAR                                                 ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner    :     Mr. Shariq Mohammad.

For the Respondent    :     None

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 24.01.2012 passed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA

1821/2011. The case pertains to the cancellation of the candidature of the

respondent for the post of Constable (Executive) with the Delhi Police. The

respondent had applied for the said post during the recruitments which took place

in the year 2009. Both, in his application form as well as the attestation form, the

respondent had clearly disclosed the pendency of a criminal case against him

arising out of FIR No.114/2007 under Sections 307/504/506 IPC registered at P.S.

Babri, District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.

2. The respondent was selected for the post on the basis of tests which were

conducted. However, the said selection was provisional and was subject to

verification. It was subsequently found that the respondent had been acquitted by

the concerned trial court by virtue of an order dated 14.05.2010 after giving the

respondent the benefit of doubt. However, despite the said acquittal, a show cause

notice was issued to the respondent by the petitioners on 03.03.2011 calling upon

the respondent to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Constable

(Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned in

the said show cause notice.

3. The purported reasons indicated in the said show cause notice pertained

entirely to the said FIR and the contents of the complaint which resulted in the said

FIR. It was pointed out in the purported reasons that the respondent's case had

been examined by a Screening Committee of the Police Headquarters constituted

by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to judge the nature of the respondent's

involvement in the said case. It was further pointed out that the Committee had

observed that the respondent with others were found involved in a case of attempt

to murder with deadly weapons and had even caused injuries to the complainant's

brother. It was noted in the said purported reasons that "the accused apparently

managed acquittal as due to their dreaded act, no one dared to depose against him

and such type of person is unfit for police force".

4. The respondent furnished a reply dated 14.03.2011 citing various precedents

where after acquittal, the persons had been granted employment particularly after

orders from the Tribunal as also of this Court. However, the petitioners did not

accept the reply given by the respondent and passed an order dated 22.03.2011

cancelling the candidature of the respondent with immediate effect. The very same

purported reasons which were given in the show cause notice have been

reproduced in the order dated 22.03.2011 whereby the candidature of the

respondent was cancelled. There is no other material other than the contents of the

FIR on which the petitioners have relied to cancel the candidature of the

respondent.

5. We feel that once the respondent had been acquitted after examination of all

the witnesses, the complaint and all the contents of the FIR could be looked into for

the purposes of cancelling the candidature of the respondent. This is not a case of

technical acquittal in the sense that witnesses had not coming forward where the

material witnesses had died etc. Hence, there was an acquittal after a full-fledged

trial. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Furthermore, the petitioners have also not conducted any independent

inquiry with regard to the other antecedents of the respondent to assess his

suitability for the position of Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police. What we

find is that the order dated 22.03.2011 denies the benefit of appointment to the

respondent on the basis of the very same allegations contained in the FIR which

could not be substantiated in a court of law. That would, in our view, be highly

unfair apart from the fact that such a stand has no backing of law.

7. We have in several similar cases, accepted similar views taken by the

Tribunal. Two of them being:-

(i) Government of NCT of Delhi & another v. Dinesh Kumar: W.P.(C)

5527/2010 decided on 11.11.2010;

(ii) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Subhash Chand: W.P.(C)

5527/2010 also decided on 11.11.2010.

8. As a result, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J MAY 21, 2012 rb