Commissioner Of Police And Anr. vs Dinesh Kumar
2013 Latest Caselaw 2247 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                      Date of decision: May 14, 2013


+                         W.P.(C) 3931/2012

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR.           ..... Petitioners
                 Represented by:Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj and
                 Mr.S.P.Sharma, Advocate


                    Versus

DINESH KUMAR                                       ..... Respondent
                          Represented by:Mr.Ajesh Luthra, Advocate

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. For the reasons of the law contained in our opinion dated April 29, 2013 deciding a batch of writ petitions, lead matter being WP(C) No.4052/2012 of 'Commissioner of Police v. Mukesh Kumar', instant writ petition has to be dismissed.

2. Pithily stated the reason would be the law declared by the Supreme Court in the opinion reported as (1996) 4 SCC 17 'Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.' ; as also the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in the opinion reported as 171 (2010) DLT 705 'Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. V. Robin Singh'.

W P (C) 3931/2012 1 of 3

3. The law declared was that every conviction for an offence would not require an inference to be drawn that the antecedent and character of the wrong doer is of a kind that public employment has to be denied.

4. With reference to offences being misdemeanour and felonies. Further, offences being classified as cognizable and non-cognizable; bailable as well as non-bailable, it was highlighted that only such offences which have an element of moral turpitude would warrant public employment to be denied.

5. Indisputably, conviction faced by the respondent is for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC i.e. rash and negligent driving. The conviction was on an admission of guilt with fine imposed in sum of `500/-. The respondent was on a motor cycle and had hit an old lady in a crowded area. It has to be highlighted that the respondent was not driving a four wheel vehicle or a passenger vehicle. Being appointed as Constable (Driver), working with the Delhi Police the respondent would be driving four wheel vehicle.

6. The ills of keeping people out of society in the form of breeding criminality have been highlighted in Robin Singh's case (supra) with reference to an 'All India Seminar on Correctional Service' held at New Delhi in March 19, 1969.

7. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the impugned decision dated March 07, 2012 does not warrant any interference.

8. The direction issued by the Tribunal be complied with by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.

9. No costs.

W P (C) 3931/2012                                            2 of 3
 CM No.8241/2012
       Dismissed as infructuous.



                                   (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
                                         JUDGE



                                   (V.KAMESWAR RAO)
                                        JUDGE

MAY 14, 2013
mm




W P (C) 3931/2012                                 3 of 3