Delhi High Court
Shishir Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 December, 2014
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5710/2014
SHISHIR YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.H.S. Dhaiya, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hashmat Nabi and Mr. Anuj
Singh, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 03.12.2014
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (ORAL)
1) This petition impugns an order dated 19th November, 2014
whereby the petitioner's appointment to the post of Constable/Driver cum
Pump Operator in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF')
had been cancelled pursuant to the recommendations of the Standing
Screening Committee (in short 'SSC'). The petitioner's case is that on 7th
June, 2013, he was appointed to the post of Constable and was required to
report to the CISF Recruits Training Centre at Bhilai Uttai, Distt: Durg,
Chhattisgarh. On 6th July, 2013, when he reported for his training, he was
not allowed to join the same and was sent back in the context of a
criminal case in which he had been involved. The petitioner had
submitted the relevant documents by post on 3rd September, 2013 but by
the impugned order, his appointment was cancelled.
2) Mr. H.S. Dahiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the criminal case in which the petitioner was involved, had already been
adjudicated upon way back on 23rd February, 2010 whereby the petitioner
had been acquitted. He submits that evidence was led by the prosecution
and the Trial Court found that the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 and 3 had
turned hostile and there was ample contradiction in the evidence of PW-2,
because of which the accused/petitioner deserved to be acquitted. He
further submits that once having been acquitted of the charges framed
against the petitioners, there was no occasion for the SSC to doubt the
character of the petitioner. Hence, he submits that the order of the SSC
was without any basis.
3) In reply, Mr. Hashmat Nabi, the learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the petitioner concealed the factum of his
involvement in the criminal case when he filled up the application form
on 21st August, 2012 for being considered for appointment to the
aforesaid post; that the petitioner was constrained to disclose his
involvement in the aforesaid criminal case when he was required to file
the verification documents after his selection. He has drawn our attention
to the fact that the petitioner was constrained to disclose his involvement
in a criminal case only when the character and antecedent certificates
from the local Station House Officer was required to be filed by him, at
the time of his reporting to the Principal of the aforesaid CISF Training
Centre, RTC, at Durg. Mr. Nabi has drawn our attention to page no.14 of
the compilation handed over by him. There is a character and antecedent
certificate which reflects the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case
and at page 12 of the said compilation, his response to query No.12 of the
attestation form with regard to whether the candidate has ever been
prosecuted, was initially given in the negative. However, the said
negative answer had been scratched out and 'yes' had been written,
evidently after the receipt of the character certificate from the local
police. The learned counsel also relied upon the policy guidelines for
considering cases of candidates for appointment in CAPFs, pending
criminal cases against them and the effect thereof which reads inter-alia: -
"V. Nothwithstanding the provisions of 3(III) above, such
candidates against whom chargesheet in a criminal case has
been filed in the Court and the charges fall in the category of
serious offences or moral turpitude, though later on acquitted
by extending benefit of doubt or acquitted for the reasons that
the witness have turned hostile due to fear or reprisal by the
accused person(s), he/she will generally not be considered
suitable for appointment in the CAPF. The details of crimes
which are serious offences or involve moral turpitude are at
Annexure 'A'. However, case in which the criminal Court,
while acquitting, has categorically mentioned that the criminal
case would not be a bar on appointment in Government
services, the candidate shall be considered for appointment in
the concerned CAPF."
4) He further relies upon Annexure A of the said guidelines which
lists out offences under the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and other
Acts concerning serious offences/offences involving moral turpitude. It
includes Section 452 of the IPC, with which the petitioner was charged.
5) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had been acquitted after a full-fledged trial. However, this Court notices
that the prosecution had failed to prove its case due two of their witnesses
turning hostile and contradictions in the statement of PW-2 and hence, the
prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the
petitioner was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt and not on the
basis of clear exoneration of all the charges levelled against him. In State
of M.P. v. Parvez Khan, the Supreme Court while referring to the dicta in
Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh, observed that :-
".... a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be
worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude
and must have impeccable character and integrity."
6) This Court is of the view that the petitioner chose not to disclose
his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case in his application form,
therefore, he has acted dishonestly and would not be a person of utmost
rectitude and integrity for appointment in the CISF.
7) A para military force could hardly place any confidence in a person
who chose to suppress relevant material, which would show his
involvement in a criminal case. As regards the acquittal of the petitioner
in the criminal case, this Court is of the view that the same was on the
basis of the benefit of doubt in-so-far the relevant witnesses had turned
hostile. The SSC's decision cannot be faulted because it had taken into
consideration the involvement of the petitioner in a serious offence/or
offences involving moral turpitude. The petitioner inter alia was
prosecuted under Section 452 of the IPC, which is covered under
Annexure 'A' of the policy guidelines which deals with serious
offences/offences involving moral turpitude.
8) In the context of the preceding discussion, this Court is of the view
that the petitioner has not made out a case for the exercise of discretion in
writ jurisdiction. There is no merit in the present petition, and is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
DECEMBER 03, 2014
pkb
