Delhi High Court
Prem Chandra Thakur vs Central Industrial Security ... on 3 September, 2021
#Spl. B.-1
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1873/2020
PREM CHANDRA THAKUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pavan Kumar with
Ms. Neelam, Advocate
versus:
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY
FORCE AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Satya Ranjan Swain with
Mr.Sahaj Garg and Mr.Kautilya Birat,
Advocates for Review Petitioner/R-1
to 3
% Date of Decision: 03rd September, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
The matter has been heard through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 29486/2021
Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing
the review petition is condoned. Review petition is taken on record.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
REVIEW PET. 138/2021
1. Present review petition has been filed by CISF stating that this Court
has allowed the prayer of the writ petitioner on compassionate grounds
ignoring the fact that allowing cases of such nature would open Pandora's
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:07.09.2021
23:07:59
Box as a consequence of which this Court would be flooded with litigations.
It has further been averred that this Court while passing the impugned order
perhaps did not realise that the above judgment would be treated as a
'precedent' by potential litigants and even earlier adjudicated matters would
be appealed and remedies would be sought citing the present case.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that this Court has
completedly ignored the fact the writ petitioner had criminal antecendants
which he had purposefully suppressed at the time of joining the service.
3. He also states that this Court has failed to appreciate that writ
petitioner was not a regular personnel of the CISF and hence, no
departmental enquiry was reqruied to be held against him before terminating
his services.
4. Upon a perusal of the impugned order this Court is of the view that it
has not decided the matter on compassionate ground but has stated the law
as it exists and then applied the same to the facts of the present case. It is
also wrong to aver that this Court did not realize that the impugned
judgement would be treated as a precedent by other litigants.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the applicant it had not been averred
that the writ petitioner was not a regular personnel of the CISF, despite the
averment in the writ petition that the petitioner after successful completion
of his basic training had got a regular posting. In fact, it was also not stated
in the counter affidavit that the writ petitioner was working as a probationer
on the date of his termination.
6. Further, this Court has not ignored the fact that the writ petitioner had
criminal antecedents. In fact, the Court has specifically dealt with the issue
of suppression of criminal antecedents by the writ petitioner in accordance
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:07.09.2021
23:07:59
with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. UOI & Ors;
(2016) 8 SCC 471. In any event, as this Court has held that the writ
petitioner had been acquitted before filing of the application/verification
form and the acquittal was not on technical ground but an acquittal on
merits, the said ground even if taken into consideration would not make any
difference.
7. Consequently, the present review petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
ASHA MENON, J
SEPTEMBER 3, 2021
rn
Signature Not Verified
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:07.09.2021
23:07:59
