COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. SANDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Commissioner of Police is aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. This case concerns the cancellation of the candidature of the respondent who had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in the recruitment of 2006 with the Delhi Police. We may also point out that the said OA 4298/2010 was the third round of litigation in respect of this subject matter.

(2.) THE facts are that the respondent had filed an application dated 22.03.2006 seeking appointment as a Constable (Executive) with the Delhi Police. In the said application form, he had disclosed his alleged involvement in a criminal case arising out of the FIR No.104 dated 04.08.2003 registered under Sections 148/149/323/427/452/506 IPC at Police Station Ateli, Haryana. He had also disclosed that the trial in respect of the said criminal case was pending. However, the respondent had not disclosed the factum of an earlier criminal case arising out of FIR No.257 dated 09.11.2001 registered under Sections 148/149/323 IPC at Police Station City Narnaul, Haryana. It would be pertinent to note, at this juncture, that insofar as the said FIR No.257 is concerned, the respondent had been acquitted by the trial court on 02.12.2003 inasmuch as the prosecution witnesses did not identify the respondent as one of the persons involved in the said offences. As a consequence, because the prosecution was unable to prove its case against the respondent, the said respondent was acquitted by virtue of the said order dated 02.12.2003.

(3.) CLAUSE 2(A)(a) clearly indicates that if a candidate fails or does not disclose his involvement and/or arrest in criminal cases in the application form but discloses the same in the attestation form, his candidature will not be cancelled only on this ground. This guideline clearly applies to the case in hand. The respondent had disclosed his alleged involvements in FIR No.104 in the application form but had not disclosed his alleged involvement in FIR No.257 in the said application form. However, he had disclosed his alleged involvements in both the FIRs in the attestation form. Therefore, in view of guideline 2(A)(a), it is evident that this was not a case of concealment of information and the Tribunal was right in holding so.