LALIT KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lalit Kumar, desiring to be a Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2009, successfully competed for the post, having cleared all the tests. However, after putting him to notice and having his reply, vide order dated 11.04.2011 his candidature has been cancelled for his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.03/2006 u/s 332/353 IPC pertaining to PS Salhawas, District Jhajjar, Haryana, in which he had been acquitted on 19.02.2007. It is this order which is under challenge in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the applicant had revealed his involvement in the relevant columns of the application and attestation forms. His selection was provisional, subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents etc. In that exercise, it appears, the matter went before the screening committee, on the recommendations of which, the concerned authority had put the applicant to notice, and, as mentioned above, cancelled his candidature. The applicant has annexed with the OA copy of the judgment dated 19.02.2007 passed by the criminal court, vide which he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Briefly put, the applicant was tried on the allegations as made by the prosecution that an application came to be given to the SDO, UHBVN Ltd., Matanhail by one Shamsher Singh, Junior Engineer, on 10.01.2006, alleging therein that on 09.01.2006 he was on official duty, when some miscreants of village Maliyawas came to the sub station and manhandled him and Sita Ram, LM, and that they tried to cause damage and the telephone of the complainant was also disordered. The complainant sought initiation of police action against the boys. Names of the boys were given as the applicant and five others. On the basis of the information as mentioned above, a case u/s 332/353/34 IPC came to be registered against the applicant and others, who were tried, and, as mentioned above, acquitted vide judgment dated 19.02.2007. The judgment of the criminal court would reveal that the prosecution examined two witnesses in all, i.e., the complainant as PW -1 and Sita Ram as PW -2. The said witnesses did not support the prosecution case, and the applicant and others were acquitted. The incident leading to registration of the criminal case against the applicant and others appears to be on a minor issue. No one appears to have been injured, nor is there any proof of damage to property. Even though, in the impugned order it has been mentioned that the case of the applicant was examined in the context of the gravity of the offence, judgment of the court and grounds of acquittal, but the order would reveal that nothing in that context came to be observed by the concerned authority. Simply after referring to the inputs of the charge required to be looked into and the judgment dated 04.10.1996 of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP(C) No.5340 of 1996) in the matter of DAD v Sushil Kumar, and after making a mention of the skeletal part of the reply to the show cause notice, what has been observed while rejecting the candidature of the applicant, is as follows:

(3.) In number of matters, like the one in hand, which have been coming before us, the pattern of the orders is simply making brief mention of the prosecution version, the inputs of the charge required to be looked into, and then by simply accepting the prosecution version, to reject the candidature of the concerned candidate. This, we have held on number of occasions, is no way to do administrative justice. The applicant at the time he was alleged to have committed the crime would be a young person, and his age was one of the relevant considerations, which does not find even a remote mention in the impugned order. We have found in number of cases that whatever be the nature of offence and whatever may be the manner of acquittal, the respondents would simply take the prosecution version as gospel truth, and without discussing the required inputs, would cancel the candidature of the concerned candidate.