SURENDER CHAHAR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner responded to an advertisement issued by the Commissioner of Police for being appointed as a Constable (Driver) in the year 2009. He was successful at the selection examination conducted and was called upon to fill the attestation form which petitioner filled up on January 09, 2010. He truthfully disclosed the correct facts that he was never named as an accused for having committed any offence.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY for the petitioner, one Shanker Lal lodged a complaint on February 09, 2010 at P.S. Khandela, District Sikkar, Rajasthan pursuant whereof FIR No.16/2010 for offences under Sections 143/323/452 IPC read with Section 3 of the SC/ST Act was registered naming the petitioner and a few others as accused.

(3.) DURING police verification it came to the knowledge of the Commissioner of Police that the petitioner was an accused in FIR No.16/2010 and thus on August 16, 2010 a show cause notice was issued to him, inter alia, stating that the FIR in question would disclose that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case where the gravity of the offence was severe. With reference to the FIR it was indicated in the show cause notice that its contents would show that the petitioner was a man of a violent nature and would indulge in crime without fear of law. A reference was made to the FIR, in which Shanker Lal had alleged that 7/8 persons which included the petitioner had come to his shop in a jeep; had dragged him out of the shop and after beating him and abusing him with reference to his caste had threatened to kill him. They had done so to teach Shanker Lal a lesson pertaining to the recent elections held to elect the Sarpanch. The show cause notice referred to the fact that before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikkar, the complainant stated that since the matter was compromised he was not interested in any further action. The petitioner was called upon to respond to the show cause notice which he did on August 27, 2010 and we simply highlight that the petitioner brought out in the reply that pursuant to the FIR in question the police had investigated and had submitted a closure report in which the police had highlighted that no such incident took place as was alleged by the complainant. The closure report brought out that there was a minor verbal exchange of words between one Mahesh Meena and the complainant and with no one else. The closure report brought out that said Mahesh Meena, along with a few other persons which included the writ petitioner were travelling in a Qualis and had passed by the shop of the complainant.