DINESH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dinesh Kumar, the applicant herein, was provisionally selected on the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds, subject to satisfactory police verification of his character and antecedents etc. On receipt of the character and antecedents and police verification report, which revealed that the applicant was involved in case FIR No.1035/2007 u/s 279/337 IPC, PS Najafgarh, dated 21.12.2007, a show cause notice was issued to him, and his candidature has been cancelled vide order dated 03.02.2011. It appears that the matter came up before the screening committee, which was to assess the suitability of the applicant for the post of Constable (Driver), which examined the case of the applicant keeping in view the nature of his involvement, gravity of the offence, judgment of the court, the grounds of acquittal and 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) in the matter of DAD v Sushil Kumar. The FIR aforesaid was registered against the applicant on the complaint of one Dayachand, alleging that while he was crossing road along with his mother, a motor cycle coming from Najafgarh side in a rash and negligent manner hit his mother, due to which she received injuries on her person, and thereafter the motor -cyclist, later identified as the applicant, fled away from the spot. The applicant was sentenced on his pleading guilty u/s 279 IPC to pay fine of Rs.500/ -. The committee observed that the applicant was involved in a case of rash and negligent driving and causing an accident, in which an old lady suffered injuries, and rather than taking her to hospital, the applicant preferred to flee from the spot, and, therefore, he was found unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police. The view of the screening committee has been reflected in the impugned order, and on that basis, the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled.

(2.) The case registered against the applicant u/s 279/337 IPC pertains to the year 2007. We may mention at the outset that the case was registered u/s 279/337, but in the later part of the impugned order, the offence mentioned is u/s 338, which appears to be a mistake. Section 338 is causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. It is admitted position that the lady, the victim of the accident, had received only simple injuries. The offence, therefore, committed by the applicant would be u/s 337. What we have said, would be further clear from the fact that it is mentioned in the order itself that the offence u/s 338 IPC was compromised with the complainant, which is possible u/s 337 only, as u/s 338 the offence can be compoundable only with permission of the court. Insofar as, Section 279 IPC is concerned, the same is rash driving or riding on a public way so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. The punishment prescribed for offence under the said Section is six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The offence is non -compoundable. The applicant pleaded guilty and was fined Rs.500/ - for the offence committed by him u/s 279 IPC.

(3.) This Tribunal is confronted with number of cases where candidature of the applicants, be it for the post of SI, ASI, Head Constable or Constable in Delhi Police, has been rejected for their involvement in criminal cases. The common experience of this Tribunal is that the respondents would not appoint anyone who may be involved in a criminal case, irrespective of the year in which he may have been so involved, or the offence that he might have committed. Practically, in every case we have found reference to the decision of the Apex Court, mentioned above, and then pure and simple narration of facts picked -up from the FIR, and ultimately, an order that the candidature of the concerned candidate is cancelled. Number of cases have been coming before us where the candidates may be involved in offences such as Section 323 IPC, which is the least offence amongst bodily injuries mentioned in the IPC. Respondents would cancel the candidature of such candidates as well. In such cases we have found that the incident may have taken place years and years ago, and yet no appointments are being made. We had occasion to observe in number of cases that if in such petty offences, which might have been committed years and years ago, and wherein even the concerned candidates might have been acquitted as well, if appointments are not to be made, then it is not known in what cases, in consideration of involvement of candidates in criminal cases, appointment shall be made. In the present case, the occurrence is of the year 2007 and the offences are petty. Even though Section 279 IPC may be non -compoundable, the same is, at the most, punishable for six months imprisonment. The respondents would not consider that the time that has elapsed between the occurrence and the appointment, which, in the present case, would be four years, as it was on 03.02.2011 that the candidature of the applicant has been rejected. The respondents would not consider also that the applicant would be a young man at the time when he caused the accident, which resulted only into simple injuries, and further that denial of public employment for life is a very serious issue. The nature of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the conduct of the concerned candidate, the manner of acquittal or conviction, as the case may be, have to be meticulously examined. We find that the relevant inputs are not even taken into consideration, and as mentioned above, by taking the prosecution story as gospel truth, even in a case where the accused may have been acquitted, public employment is being denied. This is no way to impart administrative justice. We may not comment anything else, but for to state that in a recent order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1821 of 2011 in the matter of Shani Kumar v Commissioner of Police and another, decided on 24.01.2012, we found it suitable to order appointment of a person who was involved in a case u/s 307 IPC. While doing so, we meticulously examined the allegations against the applicant in the said case, the nature of his involvement and gravity of the offence, as also the role attributed to him. We relied upon a decision of the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.5510/2010 and connected petition in the matter of Government of NCT of Delhi & another v Dinesh Kumar, decided on 11.11.2010, wherein, in consideration of the facts of the case before it, the Honble Bench thought a candidate to be fit for appointment, even though he was involved in a case u/s 307 IPC. Similar view was taken by us in yet another Original Application bearing OA No.2540 of 2011 in the matter of Mandeep v Government of NCT of Delhi & others, decided on 20.01.2012.