DES RAJ Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Des Raj, the applicant herein, in the recruitment process that came to be initiated by the respondents in 2009, was provisionally selected for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. Candidature of the applicant has been cancelled vide order dated 22.03.2011, for his involvement in a criminal case. It is this order that has been called in question in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) Candidature of the applicant has been cancelled because of his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.157/2008 u/s 458/380/511 IPC, PS Tijara, District Alwar (Rajasthan), in which he had been acquitted by the concerned criminal court vide order dated 18.12.2008. It is not in dispute that the applicant had made mention of the criminal case aforesaid in all his relevant documents. The case of the applicant was examined by the screening committee of PHQ constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to judge the nature of his involvement in the criminal case, gravity of the offence, judgment of the court, grounds of acquittal, as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned in the show cause notice dated 25.11.2010, and inasmuch as, the applicant was involved in the case aforesaid, even though acquitted, after receipt of his reply to the show cause notice, his candidature, as mentioned above, has been cancelled. Simply after referring to the inputs of the charge required to be looked into and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, 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.) Available on records is the judgment of the criminal court, perusal whereof would reveal that the applicant was tried for offences as mentioned above on the allegations that the complainant Manoj Kumar presented a written complaint to the police stating therein that on 19.04.2008 at about 11 hours in the night, in Village Gothra two -three persons with intention of theft entered into the house of one Lal Singh. After the entrance, the ladies woke up and raised an alarm, whereafter some villagers gathered there and, out of the three thieves, caught hold of one, while the other two managed to escape from the spot. The boy apprehended by the villagers was identified as the applicant. Information regarding this was sent to police at 2 a.m. on the intervening night of 19/20.04.2008. In its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the applicant, the prosecution examined Mahipal (PW -1), Rajaram (PW -2), complainant Manoj Kumar (PW -3), Ram Rati (PW -4) and Rajpal (PW -5), besides producing documentary evidence exhibited as Ex.P -1 to Ex.P -6. None of the PWs supported the prosecution version, and, therefore, the applicant was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. Even though, it is mentioned that fitness of the applicant for being appointed in Delhi Police was required to be examined in the context of nature of his involvement in the crime, gravity of offence, grounds of acquittal etc., but while referring to a skeletal part of his reply to the show cause notice, nothing as regards inputs as mentioned above, was taken into consideration. This is what precisely the respondents are doing in every case. Several orders that we have come across are stereo -type, making a mention of the inputs required to be taken into consideration, the same very judgment of the Apex Court as mentioned in the present case, the prosecution version, and a skeletal part of the reply of the candidate concerned, and without considering anything whatsoever, orders are passed in every case cancelling the candidature of the candidate.