SHAUKAT ALI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shaukat Ali, aspiring to be a Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, cleared all the tests for recruitment on the post under contention in the recruitment process gone into by the respondents in the year 2009. He was provisionally selected subject to verification of his character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents, etc. In the exercise undertaken by the respondents of verification of his character and antecedents etc., it came to the notice of the respondents that a criminal case pertaining to FIR No.93/2004 u/s 323/324/34 IPC, PS Amb, District Una (HP) was registered against him, in which he was acquitted on 28.09.2006. It is not in dispute that the applicant had disclosed his involvement in the case aforesaid in all the relevant documents. The case of the applicant as regards his criminal involvement came to be examined by the screening committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, in view of the nature of his involvement in the criminal case, gravity of offence, judgment of the court as well as the grounds of acquittal. Based upon the findings of the screening committee, a show cause notice came to be issued to the applicant as to why his candidature be not cancelled, and after receiving his response, vide orders dated 25.11.2010, his candidature has been cancelled. It is against this order that the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. In the notice issued to the applicant, it has been mentioned that on 02.05.2004, one Kamaluddin, complainant, had deployed a JCB to level his agricultural land, and that on the request of applicant, the JCB driver unloaded the extracted soil in his adjoining land, and 28 trolleys of soil were unloaded. The applicant asked the JCB driver to unload some soil in his other land as well, but the driver replied that he would dig the soil after 2 -3 days. Upon this, it is further mentioned, the applicant became angry and threw stone at the brother of the JCB driver, who somehow escaped. Thereafter the other accused Jannat Bibi snatched a Darat from one Viptu and gave it to the applicant, who assaulted the complainant and beat his father, due to which the complainant and his father sustained injuries. Later on, the court acquitted the applicant vide order dated 28.09.2006 as the complainant and other material witnesses turned hostile during trial and did not support the prosecution story. In the impugned order, while referring to skeletal part of the reply of the applicant, the order of cancellation of his candidature came to be passed by observing as follows: The plea(s) put forth by you in your reply have been considered and found not convincing because of the reasons that complainant Sh. Kamaluddin S/o Sh. Noor Mohd. had deployed a JCB to level his agriculture land. The driver unload 20 trollies of soil in your adjoining land and you asked him to unload some soil in your other land but the driver replied that he will dig the soil after 2/3 days. Upon this, you became angry and threw stone at the brother of JCB driver but he somehow escaped from the spot. Thereafter other accused Jannat Bibi snatched Darat from one Viptu and gave it to you and you assaulted complainant and beat his father due to which they sustained injuries. Therefore, on the basis of report submitted by the Screening Committee duly constituted by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and in view of all circumstances as stated above, you have not been found suitable for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and your candidature for the post of Contable (Exe.) Male is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.

(3.) As in every case, so also in this, the respondents even though may have mentioned that the case has to be examined in view of the gravity of the offence, judgment of the court, grounds of acquittal, as well as the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court dated 04.10.1996 in Civil appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP(C) No.5340 of 1996) DAD v Sushil Kumar, but while giving reasons, nothing in that regard has been even remotely mentioned. All that has been done is that basic part of the prosecution story has been mentioned, the same has been taken as gospel truth, and on the basis of recommendations of the screening committee, the applicant has been shown the exit door. We have gone through the judgment dated 28.09.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitting the applicant and his co -accused Jannat Bibi. The incident pertained to the year 2004, five years before the recruitment process started. The applicant and his co -accused were put to trial on the allegations that the complainant Kamaluddin disclosed to the police that on the day of the incident he had deployed one JCB in order to level his land, and that the mud so extracted through tractor was being put by the complainant in his adjoining land. After some time, the applicant told the complainant that some mud be also put in his land. The complainant, therefore, used his tractor as well as tractor of one Liakat Ali and put around 28 trolleys of soil in the land of the applicant. Thereafter stones started coming down from the field which was being dug by the JCB and from where mud was being loaded in the tractor. Around 7.15 p.m. the applicant again told that some mud be also put in the other field belonging to him. On hearing conversation going on between the complainant and the applicant, owner of the JCB told that since it was odd time, therefore, the applicant should get the mud lifted and put in his field after two days. On hearing these words from the JCB owner, the applicant allegedly became rash and asserted that even though the JCB owner was telling about two days, he would get the mud put in his field on that day itself. The complainant allegedly told the applicant that since the JCB owner was refusing, the applicant should himself go and talk to him. On this, the applicant lifted a big stone and threw it towards Alaf Deen, brother of the complainant, who somehow escaped the hit, whereafter Jannat Bibi, the co -accused of the applicant, snatched a Darat from one Viptu who was standing nearby, and handed it over to the applicant, who used that Darat and gave hit on the right arm from the sharp edge, and also hit from the back side of the Darat on the back of the complainant. Father of the complainant Noor Mohammad was also allegedly beaten up by the applicant and Jannat Bibi by means of fists blows and Darat. Inasmuch as, Alaf Deen, Nasir Ali, Viptu and owner of JCB were there, they saved the complainant and his father from the clutches of the accused. The learned trial judge framed the following points for determination: