Delhi High Court
Vikram Singh vs Commissioner Of Police Delhi & ... on 18 November, 2015
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment : 18th November, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 10603/2015
VIKRAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Jashandeep Sandhu, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Advocate for
GNCTD.
$~45
+ W.P.(C) 10627/2015
RAJESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Jashandeep Sandhu, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. R. V. Sinha and Mr. A. S. Singh,
Advocates for UOI.s
Mr. Gautam Narayan, Additional Standing
Counsel (Civil) for R-2, 3 and 4.
$-47
+ W.P.(C) 10635/2015
ANIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Jashandeep Sandhu, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Devesh Singh, Additional Standing
Counsel for R-1 and 2.
W. P. (C) Nos. 10603/2015, 10627/2015, 10635/2015, 10639/2015, 10641/2015, 10642/2015 and
10643/2015
Page 1 of 5
$-48
+ W.P.(C) 10639/2015
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Jashandeep Sandhu, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel
for GNCTD.
$-49
+ W.P.(C) 10641/2015
AJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Jashandeep Sandhu, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Aahua Kalra, Advocate for
Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Additional Standing
Counsel (Civil) GNCTD.
$-50
+ W.P.(C) 10642/2015
SUBHASH CHANDER ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Jashandeep Sandhu, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. S. S. Malik and Ms. Prachi V. Sharma,
Advocates for R-1 and 3.
$-51
+ W.P.(C) 10643/2015
SURENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Jashandeep Sandhu, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. S. S. Malik and Ms. Prachi V. Sharma,
Advocates for R-1 and 3.
W. P. (C) Nos. 10603/2015, 10627/2015, 10635/2015, 10639/2015, 10641/2015, 10642/2015 and
10643/2015
Page 2 of 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 18.11.2015
CM APPL. No. 27042/2015 in W. P. (C) 10603/2015,
CM APPL. No. 27202/2015 in W. P. (C) 10627/2015,
CM APPL. No. 27220/2015 in W. P. (C) 10635/2015,
CM APPL. No. 27232/2015 in W. P. (C) 10639/2015,
CM APPL. No. 27239/2015 in W. P. (C) 10641/2015,
CM APPL. No. 27240/2015 in W. P. (C) 10642/2015 and
CM APPL. No. 27241/2015 in W. P. (C) 10643/2015
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exception.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
W. P. (C) Nos. 10603/2015, 10627/2015, 10635/2015, 10639/2015,
10641/2015, 10642/2015 and 10643/2015
3. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the order dated 18.05.2011
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
4. The present writ petitions arise out of a common order. Pursuant to an
advertisement inviting applications for filling up the post of Constable
(Driver) in the year 2009, petitioners applied for the aforesaid post,
they were called for an interview, declared successful and were
appointed for the post of Constable (Driver). Subsequently, show
cause notices were issued and their candidatures were cancelled by an
order dated 10.11.2010 on the ground that the licenses produced were
fake and not genuine. The OAs filed before the Tribunal were
rejected.
5. We are informed that in a batch of writ petitions, by an order dated
04.03.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, identical
W. P. (C) Nos. 10603/2015, 10627/2015, 10635/2015, 10639/2015, 10641/2015, 10642/2015 and
10643/2015
matters were dismissed. The operating part of the order reads as
under:
"Considering the fact that in a similar case this Court has
already taken a view that the decision arrived at by the
Tribunal is based on the enquiry committed by the Crime
Branch of the Delhi Police and, therefore, we find no reason
to interfere with the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal.
The operative para of the said judgment is reproduced as
under:-
„ 6. The genuineness and authenticity of the
driving licence is one of the indispensable
condition for considering the petitioner‟s
appointment and for assessing his eligibility for
the said post. Based on the inquiry report
submitted by the Crime Branch, on which the
learned Tribunal has placed reliance holding
that the licence produced by the petitioner is
fake and not genuine, we find no illegality,
perversity, or any ground for interfering with
the impugned order dated 24.09.2013 passed in
O.A. No. 2920/2011 passed by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, the present
petition is dismissed.
It is not in dispute that in these cases their licenses were also
found to be fake and ingenuine based on the inquiry report
submitted by the Crime Branch and, therefore, the case of
these petitioners is not different than that of the case decided
by this Court in Rajnikant (supra).
All these petitions are accordingly dismissed."
6. We may notice that while dismissing the OAs, the Tribunal had issued
the following directions :
" It is not possible for us to go into the facts of all
these cases and adjudicate upon the matter. It would be
necessary, in the interest of justice, to remand the matter
to the respondents and direct them to issue fresh notices
to show cause based on the facts of each case so that the
Applicants may have the opportunity to reply to the
notice and, after due inquiry, pass a speaking order based
W. P. (C) Nos. 10603/2015, 10627/2015, 10635/2015, 10639/2015, 10641/2015, 10642/2015 and
10643/2015
on cogent reasons. The notices to show cause and the
orders passed thereon are quashed and set aside. We
make it clear that we have not gone into the merit of any
case and have not made any comments about the merits.
The above directions should be complied with within
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The selection of the candidates to the post of
Constable (Driver) would abide by the decision taken by
the Respondents pursuant to these directions. Needless
to say the Applicants will have the liberty to challenge
the fresh order passed by the Respondents, if their
grievance still survives. There will no orders as to
costs."
7. Having regard to the fact that the identical matters already stand
dismissed, we find no reason to take a different view in the matter.
Accordingly, all writ petitions and pending applications are dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 18, 2015
gr
W. P. (C) Nos. 10603/2015, 10627/2015, 10635/2015, 10639/2015, 10641/2015, 10642/2015 and
10643/2015
