Commissioner Of Police & Anr. vs Satyavir Singh
2013 Latest Caselaw 2136 Del

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

%                                     Date of decision: May 08, 2013

+                        W.P.(C) 3016/2012

       COMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR             ..... Petitioners
                    Represented by: Mr.Shariq Mohd., Advocate

                         versus

       SATYAVIR SINGH                            ..... Respondent
                    Represented by: Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Advocate

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

1. Satyavir Singh was an accused in FIR No.65/2000 P.S. Munadawar Rajasthan, for offences punishable under Sections 147/148/323/325/451/324 IPC and upon being found guilty was awarded punishment to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. In appeal filed he was given the benefit of probation.

2. His candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) being cancelled on ground of he being convicted led him to file O.A. 1950/2001 which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated January 24, 2012 observing that in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 no adverse civil consequences can flow against Satyavir Singh.

3. The view taken by the Tribunal is incorrect for the reason a person released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not suffer a disqualification because of Section 12 of the said Act

would only mean, as explained by a Division Bench of this Court in the opinion reported as 2007 (IX) AD (Delhi) 241 Satraj Singh vs. UOI & Ors, that the person would not be debarred from availing civil benefits but the same would not mean that the guilt is washed away. In a recent decision pronounced by this Bench on April 18, 2013 deciding WP(C) 2372/2010 Ajit Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police it was highlighted that character and antecedents verification is with respect to the past life lived by the appraisee and thus such acts which constitute offences under the penal law can always be considered by an employer.

4. In another decision pronounced by this Bench on April 29, 2013 deciding WP(C) 4052/2012 Commissioner of Police vs. Mukesh Kumar, with reference to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1996) 11 SCC 615 Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar as also the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2011) 4 SCC 644 Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar, it was held that even if a person is convicted for having committed a penal offence that by itself would not disentitle the person to be given employment to a public post. In what manner the evidence pertaining to the conviction has to be appraise by the employer has been explained in the said decision.

5. The decision to cancel the candidature of Satyavir Singh has not appraised the evidence at the criminal trial in the manner same is warranted when issue pertaining to character verification for being appointed to a civil post is required to be done.

6. Thus, setting aside the impugned order dated January 24, 2012 passed by the Tribunal as also order dated May 11, 2011 cancelling Satyavir's candidature, to be appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police, we remand the matter to the Commissioner of Police to take a fresh decision keeping in

view the law declared in Mukesh Kumar's case (supra). Since an appraisal Committee has been formed, the decision which would be taken by the Committee would be a reasoned decision.

CM No.6495/2012 (stay)

Dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE MAY 08, 2013 skb