MANOJ KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) dated 24.09.2013 passed in O.A. No.3044/2012. The grievance made before the CAT was that the petitioner was unfairly denied employment even though he was selected to the post of Constable (Driver) with the Delhi Police.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process, pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates in respect of the post of Constable (Driver), to which he applied on 17.03.2009. He was placed in the select list published subsequently. Concededly the petitioner also cleared the driving/ trade test, conducted by the respondent Department of the Commissioner of Police. The recruitment process resulted in the drawing up of a select list of 220 candidates. However, before issuance of appointment letter, the respondents sought verification of the information furnished by the applicants, including the petitioner. At the stage of verification, the respondents formed an opinion that the driving license for Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV), relied upon by the petitioner, was dubious. This was based upon preliminary information received by the employer. The petitioner was served with a show -cause notice on 21.07.2010, which ultimately culminated in the order dated 28.12.2010, rejecting the representation received and cancelling his candidature. On that account, the petitioner -and apparently the other candidates approached the CAT. The petitioner's application, being O.A. No.345/2011, was disposed of on 18.05.2011 by an order which required the employer to give appropriate opportunity to reply to the show -cause notice to the concerned candidate, and after due inquiry, pass a speaking order based on cogent reasons. Consequently, the petitioner was again served a show -cause notice dated 06.07.2011, to which he responded. This was rejected by an elaborate speaking order dated 29.09.2011. This was the subject matter of the latest challenge before the Tribunal, through an unsuccessful application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel urged that the impugned order has not taken into consideration the inherent inconsistencies in the report relied upon by the respondent employer. Highlighting that there were different versions about the veracity of the license issued to the petitioner, and reasons why driving licenses of several candidates were sought to be suspended, it was stated that there was no material on record to suggest that the petitioner had practiced fraud, or had forged the documents relied upon by him. It was submitted that, concededly, the authorities had initiated criminal proceedings, and fairness demanded that the public employer should await the outcome of such proceedings before taking a final decision.