MANJEET Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manjeet, the applicant herein, was selected provisionally for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police in the recruitment held in the year 2009, subject to satisfactory verification of his character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. On scrutiny of his application and attestation forms in the aftermath of his provisional selection, the respondents found that the applicant had disclosed his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.164 dated 25.07.2002 u/s 148/149/34/323/427/506 IPC, pertaining to PS Kanina, district Mahendergarh (Haryana). The applicant had not concealed the factum of his involvement in the criminal case. The matter came to be examined by the screening committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police to judge the suitability of the applicant for appointment on the post of Constable (Exe.), keeping in view the nature of his involvement in the criminal case, gravity of the offence, judgment of the court, grounds of acquittal etc., in the context of the judgment dated 04.10.1996 of the Hon ble 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, but the committee found that the applicant was not fit for appointment, and, therefore, the respondents issued a notice dated 14.03.2011, calling upon him to show cause as to why his candidature be not cancelled, and vide order dated 11.05.2011 his candidature has been cancelled. It is this order which has been challenged by him in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) The impugned order refers to the basic facts of the case, and the inputs on which the candidature of the applicant was to be examined, wherein the basic contents of the reply filed by the applicant to the show cause notice have been mentioned. The impugned order thereafter proceeds to note the incident subject matter of the criminal trial against the applicant. In that regard it has been observed that the contents of the FIR and the judgment of the trial court would reveal that on 22.07.2002, Amar Singh and Sajjan Singh working as driver and conductor of bus No. HR 66 -0339 were going with the bus from Kanina to Sihma, and when they reached near Mundia Khera, all passengers alighted from the bus and only four passengers remained sitting in the bus. Near canal they noticed that the applicant along with 8 -10 boys were standing on the road side holding dandas in their hands. Later they broke the windowpanes and front glasses of the bus by hitting dandas and also hit them with fist blows and slapped, due to which they sustained injuries. When the complainant raised alarm, all the accused fled from the scene and one bag containing Rs.35,000/ - was found missing from the bus. During trial of the case, all the material witness did not depose in tune with the prosecution version and were thus declared hostile. Upon this, the court vide its order dated 28.05.2007 acquitted the applicant by giving benefit of doubt. It is mentioned in the impugned order that it is a fact that the applicant was involved in a criminal case of rioting and assaulted the bus driver and conductor in a pre -planned act, which caused huge damage to the government property, and that due to fear of reprisals, it appeared that even the material witnesses resiled from their earlier statements, and the court acquitted him by giving benefit of doubt, and that such type of attitude would render him unsuitable for a disciplined force like Delhi Police. While thus observing so, an order came to be passed cancelling the candidature of the applicant. In this OA filed by the applicant, his obvious prayer is to set aside the order aforesaid, and in consequence thereof to direct the respondents to consider him for appointment on the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply contested the cause of the applicant.