The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vikram Ruhal vs Delhi Police & Ors. consisting of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, while observing the growing tendency amongst women to rope in all the relatives including minors in case an FIR is lodged with reference to matrimonial disputes, held that merely being named in the FIR cannot be treated as an impediment for public appointment, unless the involvement is substantiated on an investigation, especially in relation to matrimonial offences.
Facts:
The petitioner applied for the position of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police in response to a recruitment notice. He successfully passed all the necessary exams, but before the final result was announced, an FIR was filed against him and his family members. Despite this, he was recommended for the job, subject to verification. During the verification process, he disclosed the pending FIR.
Procedural History:
The petitioner received a notice in May 2019 asking why his candidacy for a position in the Delhi Police should not be cancelled due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case. He responded with a detailed reply in June 2019. In November 2019, a charge sheet was filed in the criminal case, but the petitioner was not summoned. In September 2020, the petitioner was informed that his case was pending until a final decision was made in the criminal case. The petitioner made two requests to the Commissioner of Police to consider his candidature but received no response. As a result, the petitioner filed a case challenging the order issued by respondent No. 1. In October 2020, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and make a decision within eight weeks. In December 2020, the Screening Committee recommended keeping the petitioner's case pending due to the seriousness of the offences and the fact that the case was still under trial. In February 2023, the Tribunal disposed of the petitioner’s second case challenging the December 2020 order. The petitioner challenged this February 2023 order in this writ petition.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that the petitioner was merely named as a collateral accused in the aforesaid FIR arising from matrimonial disputes, wherein bald allegations had been made implicating all the family members. After a thorough investigation, the petitioner was found innocent and was placed in column 12 of the charge sheet. However, the court refused to provide relief as they believed the petitioner may be summoned later u/s 319 CrPC and because he was still listed in the charge sheet. It was argued that the petitioner should not be made to suffer indefinitely, even if the case goes to appeal, as the allegations against him were not proven during the investigation.
Respondent: The order made by the Tribunal had been supported by the respondents and their arguments have been repeated. It was contended that the matter was examined according to the Commissioner of Police's standing orders. The petitioner was provisionally selected for the position of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police pending satisfactory verification. The Screening Committee examined the case but due to the ongoing trial, the appointment was put on hold until a final decision was made. The petitioner was accused of a serious offense and the action taken by the respondents is justified due to the disciplined nature of the force.
Observations of the Court:
Relying on Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Ors., the Bench observed that even if a disclosure has been truthfully made by the applicant, the employer has the right to consider antecedents and fitness and cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate.
It further noted that in Avtar Singh (supra) it was held that candidates for employment must be truthful about any past convictions, acquittals, arrests, or pending criminal cases. Even if a candidate discloses this information, the employer has the right to consider their fitness for the job and may decline to hire them if they deem them unfit or of dubious character. The nature of the offense and the circumstances surrounding the acquittal will also be considered. The standards for higher positions will be more rigorous, while lower positions will be evaluated based on the nature of the job and the impact of any suppression of information on suitability.
The Competent Authority was accordingly responsible for evaluating the offense, evidence, and circumstances related to the petitioner’s case. This evaluation could not be restricted to a specific approach, and the authorities have some flexibility in their decision-making process, which should be exercised carefully and cautiously.
It opined that in the instant case, the petitioner did not hide any information or deceive anyone. The case was related to a family dispute, where the petitioner's brother and his wife filed an FIR against the petitioner and other family members. The petitioner was accused of general allegations, and he was only 19 or 20 years old at the time of the incident. After investigating the case, it was found that the allegations of dowry demand and harassment against the petitioner and another family member were false, and they were innocent. As a result, their names were placed in column No. 12.
It observed that a policy exists for deciding cases of candidates provisionally selected in Delhi Police who have disclosed their involvement in criminal cases. However, merely being summoned after the filing of a chargesheet, particularly in matrimonial offences, is not a valid reason for withholding the appointment. The petitioner had already suffered due to the FIR, and his appointment had been deferred despite the investigation pointing to their innocence. It also observed that appointments should not be deferred indefinitely until the conclusion of a trial, especially when the investigation was in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner who was listed in Column No. 12 was not summoned by the JMIC despite being aware of their involvement, it would not be assumed that they might be called later under Section 319 of the CrPC.
It held that merely being named in the FIR cannot be treated as an impediment to a public appointment, unless the involvement is substantiated by investigation, especially in relation to matrimonial offences.
It opined that the authorities and tribunal did not consider the fact that women often involve all their family members, including minors, in filing complaints related to marital disputes. Many of these complaints are later settled between families. While this abuse of the law is noticed, the purpose of the law should not be ignored. Just naming someone in a complaint does not give an employer the right to indefinitely postpone hiring them, even if they are listed in the charge sheet but not summoned.
Judgment:
The Bench set aside the order dated September 11, 2020, and December 02, 2020, passed by the respondents along with the impugned order dated February 20, 2023, passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 45/2021 deferring the consideration of appointment of petitioner till disposal of FIR No. 234/2018. The respondents were ordered to hire the petitioner for the specific position, provided that all other requirements were met within four weeks. The petitioner was also entitled to receive seniority benefits and was to be paid from the date he started working.
Case: Vikram Ruhal vs Delhi Police & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 5718/2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
For Petitioner: Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Ms. Srishti Khanna, Mr. Sidhant Saraswat and Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv.
For Respondents: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel GNCTD (Criminal) with Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik and Ms. Aliza Alam, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
