Union Of India & Anr. vs Nitin Kumar Dabas
2013 Latest Caselaw 3549 Del

$~12
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Date of Decision: August 12, 2013

+                          W.P.(C) 3113/2013

      UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                              .....Petitioners
               Represented by:          Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate with
                                        Mr.R.N.Singh and Mr.A.S.Singh,
                                        Advocates

                                   versus

      NITIN KUMAR DABAS                                  ..... Respondent
               Represented by:          Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
                                        with Ms.Aditi Gupta, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. With regret we note that from a particular Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Delhi we are receiving judgments which are being written most casually, without even discussing the relevant facts. So casually are the judgments written that they do not even bring out what was in the mind of the members of the Bench when they penned the opinion. This results in the writ court being burdened with the task of re-appraising the facts.

2. But this case has compelled us to pen down our anguish as aforewritten because we find that in the impugned decision dated December 03, 2012, in paragraphs 8 and 10, the Bench concerned has written that the two criminal cases in which the respondent was involved were not of a very serious nature. We are surprised at the observations of

the Tribunal for the reason it is not in dispute that FIR No.62/2008, in which the respondent was named as an accused, pertained to the charge of rape. Now, if a judicial Fora writes that rape is not a serious offence it would be a very serious matter and probably may even entail going beyond passing strictures at such a view taken; and against the author.

3. But from the facts which we would be noticing hereinafter, it is apparent that something else was in the mind of the Tribunal but it was sheer laziness which led the Tribunal to write that the offence of rape is not a serious offence. The Tribunal has actually intended to say something quite different.

4. Finding employment denied to him on account of the fact that respondent was one out of the three accused named in FIR No.62/2008 PS Bawana and was an accused in FIR No.448/2004 PS Bawana, the respondent filed an Original Application before the Tribunal pointing out that FIR No.62/2008, pertaining to offences punishable under Section 376/511/506/212/34 IPC, resulted in the Court concerned framing a charge only against one co-accused named Pawan for offences punishable under Sections 376/511/506 IPC and under Section 212 IPC against the second co-accused named Lokesh. As regards him i.e. the respondent, he was discharged. The reason was the concerned Court noting that as per the prosecutrix it was Pawan, who under the pretext of delivering an invitation card, entered the house and finding her alone tried to rape her and hearing her cries as her father entered the room Pawan ran out and sat on the motorcycle of Lokesh and both drove away and after sometime it was the respondent who took away Pawan on the motorcycle.

5. The learned Judge has rightly discharged the respondent because there was no evidence of his involvement and it has rightly been opined that how come the prosecutrix, sitting in her house, could say that

after Lokesh and Pawan drove away on the motorcycle, after sometime the respondent started driving the motorcycle.

6. Now, if only the Bench of the Tribunal had noted as aforesaid it would have dawned on the Bench that it is not a case where the Bench was to write that the offence of rape is not a serious offence. What the Bench should have said was that the role assigned to the respondent in the FIR was trivial and ex-facie palpably false and was rightly opined to be insufficient to even take cognizance against the respondent.

7. As regards the other FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/59/34 IPC we find that a petty family feud involving two brothers, being the respondent and his other brother Raj Singh, the complainant, who even impleaded his sister-in-law as a co- accused resulted in the matter being compromised.

8. In other words, what the Tribunal has actually found was a family dispute turning a little sour, and hence an FIR, and a false trivial allegation found unworthy of credence by a criminal court in the other incident. The same could not said to be negatively reflective of the conduct and character of the respondent to justify denying public employment to him.

9. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent did not disclose his involvement in the two FIRs when he filled up the enrollment form we find the issue having been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2011) 4 SCC 644 Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar wherein the Supreme Court held that out of fear, if a truthful disclosure was made the employment would be denied, young men tend not to disclose such trivial past events while applying for jobs and that such indiscretions have to be overlooked.

10. We dismiss the writ petition.

11. We direct the Registry of this Court to send a copy of our decision to the author of the impugned judgment dated December 03, 2012. Under a letter addressed to the Registrar of the Central Administrative Tribunal copy of this decision would be conveyed requiring the same to be delivered by the Registrar to the Member of the Bench concerned who has authored the decision.

12. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2013 mamta