Delhi High Court
Prashant Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 18 April, 2016
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5056/2015 & CM No.9145/2015
Date of Decision : 18th April, 2016
PRASHANT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Prashant Kumar by this writ petition impugns the order dated
22.7.2014 whereby his OA No.446/2013 was dismissed by the Principal
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
2. The petitioner, who was provisionally selected as Constable
(Executive) in the Delhi Police, was denied appointment on account of
involvement in a criminal case, i.e., FIR No.1042/2011 dated 14.12.2011
under Sections 294/354 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') registered with
Police Station ('PS'):Baraut, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
3. The Screening Committee who had examined the allegations
against the petitioner in the criminal case, gave an adverse finding and
thereafter the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment
Cell) ['DCP Recruitment Cell] had issued a Show Cause Notice ('SCN')
dated 6.11.2012, proposing cancellation of the petitioner's candidature
for the reasons mentioned therein. The petitioner thereupon submitted his
reply which was considered by the Office of the DCP (Recruitment Cell).
By letter order dated 26.11.2012, the petitioner was informed as under:
"Accordingly, your case was examined by the
Screening Committee constituted by the Commissioner
of Police, Delhi to judge the nature of your
involvement in above criminal case, gravity of the
offence, judgment of the court, grounds of acquittal.
You were not found suitable for police service by the
Screening Committee on the ground that case FIR
No.1042/2011 was registered against you on the
complaint of Shri Javed S/o Shri Kallu Ram R/o
Gurana Road, Baraut District Baghpat (UP) who
reported that his cousin Sabnam was a student of
MSC-1st year studying at Jat Degree College, Baraut.
At about 2:00 PM, she sat in the bus from Bawli
Chungi, Baraut along with other students. You used
abusive language against her and caught hold of her
hand and pulled towards your side. When she raised
alarm, the complainant apprehended you with the help
of his friends, namely, Shahid, Sakil and Arif. During
trial of the case main eye witness (victim) turned
hostile. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt and you were acquitted
by the Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 31.07.2012.
Upon this, a Show Cause Notice was issued to you vide
Memo No.21737/Rect. Cell (R-IV)/NPL dated
6.11.2012 proposing for cancellation of your
candidature for the reasons mentioned therein.
In response to Show Cause Notice dated 06.11.2012,
you had submitted your reply stating therein that none
of the witnesses except complainant supported the case
of prosecution. The complainant was admittedly not
the eye-witness and had reached the spot only after the
incident and the victim (Ms. Shabnam) admitted that
you had neither used obscene words nor pulled her by
catch hold of her hand. You had also pleaded that you
had been falsely implicated in the said case and the
Screening Committee has erred in making the
observation that you were involved in a case of eve-
teasing particularly when you were acquitted by the
Hon'ble Court and you have also not received any
notice/appeal against the said judgment dated
31.07.2012. You have further requested that the finding
of the Screening Committee is liable to be set aside and
you may be appointed for the post of Constable after
necessary training etc.
The plea[s]put forth by you in the reply has been
considered and not found justifiable because of the
reason that your were found involved in a case of eve-
teasing in a bus with a student of M.Sc. in broad day
light at full public view. You were acquitted by the Hon
ble Court as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt as the victim turned hostile
and could not identify the accused during trial but the
complainant had fully supported the prosecution. You
were found involved in a act of moral turpitude which
makes you unfit for a disciplined force like Delhi
Police. As such, you candidature for the post of
Constable (Exe.) is hereby cancelled with immediate
effect."
4. This order was challenged by the petitioner in OA No.446/2013,
which, as noted above, has been dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the
judgment dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barot,
District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh in a chargesheet arising out of FIR
No.1042/2011 registered at PS:Barot, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. He
submits that two purported eye-witnesses, namely, Mohd. Shahid (PW-2)
and Aarift (PW-3) had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution
case, indicting the petitioner. He has referred to the statement of the
Shabnam (PW-4), who had stated that, on 14.12.2011, she had gone to
the Jat College, where she was a student of M.Sc. first year, and had left
for home along with other students in a bus at about 2:00 pm. Vulgar
language was used by some boys and one of them had tried to pull her
hand. Crowd gathered and the boy who had held her hand was taken to
the Police Station. PW-4, after looking at the petitioner who was present
in the Court, had stated that he was not the one who had used vulgar
language and pulled her hand. It is accordingly submitted that the finding
of the Screening Committee and in the letter dated 26.11.2012 is
erroneous and factually incorrect. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on
the following judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court:
(i) Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar
(2011) 4 SCC 644;
(ii) Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(2011) 14 SCC 709;
(iii) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. v.
Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685;
(iv) Commissioner of Police & Anr. v. Ajay Kumar
Dhama 192(2012) DLT 383 (DB);
(v) Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Manjeet 194
(2012) DLT 641(DB);
(vi) Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. H.C. Laxmi
Chand 185 (2011) DLT 135(DB); and
(vii) WP(C) No.3015/2012 titled Commissioner of
Police & Anr. v. Shani Kumar decided on 21.5.2012.
6. The aforesaid arguments overlook the testimony of Javed (PW-1),
who had affirmed that the victim, daughter of his Tau, who was studying
in Jat Degree College, Baruat, was subjected to vulgar insults or abuse by
the petitioner, when she sat in the bus. The petitioner had tried to exert
force upon the victim by pulling her hand. He was present at the spot
from before and had taken the petitioner, Prashant, to the Police Station.
Apparently, the petitioner was beaten by Javed and two others. It is an
un-disputed position that the petitioner was taken to the police station and
arrested.
7. The petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment
dated 31.7.2012, but this acquittal by itself in terms and the ratio in
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. v. Mehar Singh (supra)
would not justify the petitioner's claim to appointment and quashing of
the letter of rejection dated 26.11.2012. In Mehar Singh (supra) it has
been observed:
"18. The question before this Court is whether the
candidature of the Respondents who had made a
clean breast of their involvement in a criminal case
by mentioning this fact in their
application/attestation form while applying for a
post of constable in Delhi Police; who were
provisionally selected subject to verification of their
antecedents and who were subsequently
acquitted/discharged in the criminal case, could be
cancelled by the Screening Committee of the Delhi
Police on the ground that they are not found suitable
for appointment to the post of constable.
19. We must first deal with the submission that
under the Delhi Police Rules, past involvement of a
person in a criminal case is not a disqualification
for appointment. It is true that Rule 6 thereof which
provides for grounds for ineligibility, criminal
antecedents of a person is not mentioned as a
ground for ineligibility. But, to conclude from this
that instances of moral turpitude, however grave,
could be overlooked because they do not find
mention in Rule 6, would be absurd. In any case,
Standing Order No. 398/2010 issued by the Delhi
Police to which our attention is drawn empowers the
police to take appropriate decision in such cases.
Pertinently the Respondents have not challenged the
Standing Order. This Standing Order incorporates
policy for deciding cases of candidates provisionally
selected in Delhi Police involved in criminal cases
(facing trial or acquitted)."
Reference was made to Standing Order No.398/2010 and clauses 3
and 6 thereof. The decision elucidates that the Screening Committee,
comprising of higher police officers must examine suitability of a
candidate who had disclosed his involvement in a criminal case. As per
Clause 6 of the Standing Order, a candidate against whom a serious
offences or involvement in moral turpitude was registered and acquitted
by extending benefit of doubt or as the witnesses had turned hostile due
to fear of reprisal by the accused person, were un-suitable for government
service. The Supreme Court held that the word 'generally' in Clause 6
was indicative of the nature of discretion. As a matter of rule, such
candidates should be avoided. Exceptions would be few and far between
and obviously selection in such cases must be substantiated with
acceptable reasons. It was accordingly held as under:
"23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to
conclude that the Screening Committee would be
entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of
moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are
acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or
discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable.
The Screening Committee will be within its rights to
cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the
acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct
of the prosecution case or is the result of material
witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers
of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge
whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely
to revert to similar activities in future with more
strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a
police force. The Screening Committee will have to
consider the nature and extent of such person's
involvement in the crime and his propensity of
becoming a cause for worsening the law and order
situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion,
this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit
any interference from this Court as its object appears
to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable
character enter the police force.
......XXXX...........................
34. The Respondents are trying to draw mileage from
the fact that in their application and/or attestation
form they have disclosed their involvement in a
criminal case. We do not see how this fact improves
their case. Disclosure of these facts in the
application/attestation form is an essential
requirement. An aspirant is expected to state these
facts honestly. Honesty and integrity are inbuilt
requirements of the police force. The Respondents
should not, therefore, expect to score any brownie
points because of this disclosure. Besides, this has no
relevance to the point in issue. It bears repetition to
state that while deciding whether a person against
whom a criminal case was registered and who was
later acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a
post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature
of the offence, the extent of his involvement, whether
the acquittal was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by
giving benefit of doubt because the witnesses turned
hostile or because of some serious flaw in the
prosecution, and the propensity of such person to
indulge in similar activities in future. This decision, in
our opinion, can only be taken by the Screening
Committee created for that purpose by the Delhi
Police. If the Screening Committee's decision is
not mala fide or actuated by extraneous
considerations, then, it cannot be questioned.
35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders
the great responsibility of maintaining law and order
and public order in the society. People repose great
faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that
confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police
force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must
have impeccable character and integrity. A person
having criminal antecedents will not fit in this
category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the
criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will
have to be examined to see whether he has been
completely exonerated in the case because even a
possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a
threat to the discipline of the police force. The
Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of
taking decisions in these matters to the Screening
Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee
must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent
times, the image of the police force is tarnished.
Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward
manner by misusing power are in public domain and
are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police
force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we
would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of
a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by
the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely
to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At
the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive
to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat
all candidates with even hand."
The said ratio has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591.
8. Looking at the factual matrix of the present case, we do not find
any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
APRIL 18, 2016/tp
