RAJESH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks judicial review of the order dated 5th April, 2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing O.A. No. 3917/2010 preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said O.A. was preferred impugning the order dated 20th August, 2010 of the respondents cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police.

(2.) The respondents had in the year 2009 invited applications for the vacancies for the said post. The petitioner applied, cleared the qualifying written test as well as physical test and was declared provisionally selected subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. During the said verification, it was discovered that the petitioner was involved in criminal case FIR No. 51 dated 17th March, 2000 under Ss. 323/324/34 IPC, P.S. -Kosli, District -Rewari, Haryana, though had been acquitted vide order dated 28th February, 2009 pursuant to amicable settlement. The respondents nevertheless cancelled the provisional selection of the petitioner for the reason of the petitioner having concealed his involvement in the aforesaid FIR inspite of direction in this regard in the Application Form which he had filled up.

(3.) The petitioner before the Tribunal relied inter alia on judgment dated 17th March, 2011 of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police Vs. Sandeep Kumar : (2011) 4 SCC 644. Sandeep Kumar also had concealed his involvement in a criminal case under Sec. 325/34 IPC and which case had also resulted in an acquittal on compromise. The Supreme Court held that Sandeep Kumar at the time of the FIR was about 20 years of age; at that age, young people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions can often been condoned; youth will be youth; they are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people and minor indiscretions made by young people should be condoned rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. Relying upon Morris Vs. Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B. 114, it was held that the non -mentioning of involvement in a criminal case was out of fear inasmuch as if the same had been disclosed, he would have been automatically disqualified. The Supreme Court accordingly held cancellation of provisional selection of Sandeep Kumar to be illegal.