DELHI POLICE AND ANR. Vs. OMVEER YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, recruitment cell of Delhi Police and another has impugned the order dated 10th July, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 2479/2008 titled Omveer Yadav v. Delhi Police and Ors. whereby the original application filed by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 16th October 2008 passed by the petitioner holding that the respondent was not suitable for the post of constable (executive) and cancelling his candidature for the said post, was quashed and the petitioners were directed to confer the appointment order if the respondent is found fit in all respects otherwise. The Tribunal had also held that the respondent shall not be entitled to be assigned any prior date in respect of his appointment and it would be only prospective.

(2.) BRIEF facts to comprehend the controversies are that the respondent had applied for the post of Constable (Executive), Mail in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2007. He was selected provisionally subject to medical fitness, verification of character and antecedents reveal that he was involved in a criminal case FIR 865/2005 dated 20th December, 2005 under Section 392/34 of IPC where, the respondent was released by order dated 24th November, 2006, though these facts were disclosed by the respondent in his application form and attestation form, however, in view of nature of involvement of the respondent and the gravity of offence and other relevant factors a show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why his candidature be not cancelled.

(3.) THE respondent had contended that he was implicated falsely in the case of snatching of a car by one Mr. Manoj and he was neither a party nor he had any information regarding the alleged offence. It was emphasized on behalf of the respondent that the FIR did not include his name nor stipulated his involvement. The victim Mr. Vikas had stated that he could identify Mr. Manoj and his associates who were involved in snatching of the car and therefore test identification parade was conducted by the Magistrate, where the complainant/victim did not identify the respondent. No recoveries were also made from the respondent, therefore, the investigating officer had filed an application for discharge of respondent from the case stipulating that putting up the name of the respondent in charge -sheet would be a futile exercise and consequently, the respondent was discharged from the case FIR 865/2005 by the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 24th November, 2006. In the circumstances, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the order dated 16th October, 2008 was perverse and was based on non -application of mind. Merely because the respondent was falsely implicated, his candidature could not be cancelled merely because he was arrested despite his name being not included in FIR 865/2005. It was contended that while inferring his suitability these factors were not considered and merely on the basis of statement of main accused, which is also not admissible against him, it has been held that he is not suitable. The respondent also contended that the treatment meted to him was harsh and therefore, such a harsh treatment of cancelling his candidature could not be inflicted upon the respondent in the facts and circumstances.