Sh. Surender Chahar vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 341 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of decision: January 23, 2013

+                         W.P.(C) 8667/2011

       SH. SURENDER CHAHAR                            ..... Petitioner
                       Represented by: Mr.Nilansh Gaur for
                                       Mr.Shanker Raju, Advocate
                versus

       THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS          ..... Respondents
                     Represented by: Mr.Hemant Yadav for
                                     Mr.H.S.Sachdeva, Advocate
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The writ petitioner responded to an advertisement issued by the Commissioner of Police for being appointed as a Constable (Driver) in the year 2009. He was successful at the selection examination conducted and was called upon to fill the attestation form which petitioner filled up on January 09, 2010. He truthfully disclosed the correct facts that he was never named as an accused for having committed any offence.

2. Unfortunately for the petitioner, one Shanker Lal lodged a complaint on February 09, 2010 at P.S. Khandela, District Sikkar, Rajasthan pursuant whereof FIR No.16/2010 for offences under Sections 143/323/452 IPC read with Section 3 of the SC/ST Act was registered naming the petitioner and a few others as accused.

3. But before the FIR was registered, petitioner had been issued letter offering appointment and upon his accepting the terms of appointment, petitioner started working as a Constable (Driver).

4. During police verification it came to the knowledge of the Commissioner of Police that the petitioner was an accused in FIR No.16/2010 and thus on August 16, 2010 a show cause notice was issued to him, inter alia, stating that the FIR in question would disclose that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case where the gravity of the offence was severe. With reference to the FIR it was indicated in the show cause notice that its contents would show that the petitioner was a man of a violent nature and would indulge in crime without fear of law. A reference was made to the FIR, in which Shanker Lal had alleged that 7/8 persons which included the petitioner had come to his shop in a jeep; had dragged him out of the shop and after beating him and abusing him with reference to his caste had threatened to kill him. They had done so to teach Shanker Lal a lesson pertaining to the recent elections held to elect the Sarpanch. The show cause notice referred to the fact that before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikkar, the complainant stated that since the matter was compromised he was not interested in any further action. The petitioner was called upon to respond to the show cause notice which he did on August 27, 2010 and we simply highlight that the petitioner brought out in the reply that pursuant to the FIR in question the police had investigated and had submitted a closure report in which the police had highlighted that no such incident took place as was alleged by the complainant. The closure report brought out that there was a minor verbal exchange of words between one Mahesh Meena and the complainant and with no one else. The closure report brought out that said Mahesh Meena, along with a few other persons which included the writ petitioner were travelling in a Qualis and had passed by the shop of the complainant.

5. Suffice would it be to state that taking cognizance of the closure report which was based upon investigations carried out by the police and additionally noting the fact that the complainant had not opposed the

closure of the FIR as proposed in the closure report, the matter was closed by the learned Magistrate.

6. Regretfully we find that while passing the final order on November 10, 2010, the Commissioner of Police has simply referred to the history of the facts as were disclosed in the show cause notice and has opined that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not convincing. Petitioner's services have been terminated.

7. Why was the reply not found convincing has not been brought out in the order in question. The order mechanically reproduces that the involvement in the crime shows the petitioner's violent nature rendering him unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force.

8. Regretfully even the Central Administrative Tribunal has overlooked said fact and as a consequence has dismissed O.A.No.4301/2010 filed by the petitioner.

9. The Tribunal has noted various judgments on the point that character antecedents verification is a very important aspect in public employment and more so when the employment is in a police force. The Tribunal has referred to decisions where it has been held that merely because a person stands acquitted would not mean that the person is not guilty.

10. We may only add, a person being acquitted would not mean that the person has not committed the wrong alleged, it would only mean that the prosecution was unable to gather sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt.

11. But, the facts of each case have to be considered while referring to a past precedent. It is settled law that the precedent value of a judgment cannot be de-hors the facts of the case.

12. The facts of the instant case would bring out that it was not a case where the police had filed a charge-sheet and the witnesses turned hostile

at the trial or were not believed by the court. The investigation report submitted by the police pertaining to the FIR lodged by Shanker Lal was to the effect that no such incident as alleged by Shanker Lal took place. His complaint was completely false. The trivial incident of one Mahesh Meena having a verbal exchange of words with Shanker Lal was blown out of proportion by Shanker Lal. Nobody entered the shop of Shanker Lal, much less dragged Shanker Lal outside his shop. There was just no evidence of Shanker Lal being beaten. Shanker Lal's medical examination, presumably having been got done, would have shown that he was not assaulted. Thus, the facts of this case unerringly bring out that the complaint being false it cannot be said that the petitioner is a man of violent character.

13. Had the authorities below bothered to look at the facts objectively, unnecessary litigation could have been avoided.

14. We allow the writ petition and quash the order dated November 10, 2010 cancelling petitioner's appointment as a Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. We direct petitioner to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits save and except we restrict backwages to 50%. Petitioner would be entitled to notional increments and his seniority. The period in question would be treated as spent on duty for purposes of pensionable service and service in the grade of a Constable (Driver) for purposes of promotion.

15. No costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

JANUARY 23, 2013 srb