RAMANUJ UPADHYAY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramanuj Upadhyay, desiring to be an SI (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2009 (Phase -I), successfully competed for the post, having cleared all the tests. However, after putting him to notice and having his reply, vide order dated 16.06.2011 his candidature has been cancelled for his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.139/2003 u/s 147/148/332/333/341/308 IPC read with Section 7 of Criminal Law &Amendment Act and Sections 2/3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, pertaining to PS Mutthiganj, District Allahabad, in which he was acquitted on 21.04.2010. 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 21.04.2010 passed by the criminal court, vide which he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. It is rather strange to note that even though it is a case where the applicant and others have been held to be victims and not the accused, still the respondents would deny appointment to the applicant. We may briefly mention that the case of the prosecution was that a mob of more than 2000 people collected raising slogans against reservation, in which incident some police personnel and others were injured. Present is a case where the witnesses supported the prosecution version and despite that, on the defence projected by the applicant and others, including that they were themselves injured, a firm finding came to be recorded that the applicant and others were in fact victims and not the accused. While acquitting the applicant and others, the learned court accepted the contention of the counsel representing them that the applicant and others did not cause injury to any one, and that they were present at the spot as curious onlookers, and further that their presence could not be said to be an unlawful gathering with the intent to commit any unlawful activity, and that had they not been present at the spot as curious onlookers, they would themselves not have sustained injuries.

(3.) We are distressed to note that even a case of this kind where the accused are honourably acquitted, and in fact they are found to be victims, the respondents would still deny appointment to the applicant. 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: All his written and oral submission in details have been considered and found that the candidate was named in FIR for his involvement in a violent agitation/rioting, damaging public property, assaulting, causing simple/grievous injuries to public servant as well as press reporters and doing an act amounting to attempted culpable homicide. Such act is highly undesirable. His mob mentality and indulging in violent activities without fear of law and land renders him unsuitable for appointment in Delhi Police where the highest standards of discipline are maintained. As such, the candidature of the candidate Ramanuj Upadhyay, Roll No.727227 for the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, 2009 (Phase -I) is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.