JOGINDER SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The candidature of the applicant, who was desirous of being a Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2009, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, calling in question order dated 11.05.2011, vide which his candidature has been cancelled.

(2.) The candidature of the applicant has been cancelled only because the respondents would find him unfit for his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.761 of 2010 u/s 148/149/323/325/506 IPC, PS Jhajjar. Before passing the impugned order, a show cause notice came to be given to the applicant, to which he responded, but, as in every case, so also in this, a stereo -type order has been passed, wherein even though, it is mentioned that the candidature of the applicant was examined by the screening committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police to judge the nature of his involvement in the criminal case, gravity of the offence, judgment of the criminal court, grounds of acquittal as well as 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, but there is only a cryptic and skeleton reference to the reply given by the applicant. Thereafter, by reproducing the prosecution version, the impugned order has been passed. We have been handed over the judgment of the criminal court, which would show that the applicant along with four others was tried u/s 148/149/323/325/506 IPC, on the allegations that complainant Sonu son of Rajbir stated that some time ago a quarrel had taken place, and on 11.09.2009 accused persons inflicted injuries on various parts of his body, as also inflicted injuries upon Amit, Manjeet and other persons. The prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the guilt against the applicant and others, examined complainant Sonu (PW -1), Manjeet (PW -2), Yogender (PW -3), Bhupender (PW -4) and Amit (PW -5). Thereafter the evidence of the prosecution was closed. There is nothing available on records to show as to what was the nature of injuries, as it appears that even the doctor who might have examined the injuries had not been produced. The applicant was tried u/s 323/325/506 read with section 149 IPC, which would clearly show that the injuries were simple, or grievous by blunt weapon. Who out of the accused caused injuries is not known even from the version of the prosecution mentioned in the impugned orders. The applicant was 19 years of age at the time of commission of crime. Even though it is mentioned in the order that the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, nature of offence, nature of injuries, grounds of acquittal etc., are relevant to determine as to whether the person is fit to be appointed in Delhi Police, but none of the factors as mentioned above have been taken into consideration.

(3.) In number of matters, which have been coming before us, the pattern of the orders is simply making brief mention of the prosecution version, the inputs of the charge required to be looked into, and then by simply accepting the prosecution version, to reject the candidature of the concerned candidate. This, we have held on number of occasions, is no way to do administrative justice. We have found in number of cases that whatever be the nature of offence and whatever may be the manner of acquittal, the respondents would simply take the prosecution version as gospel truth, and without discussing the required inputs, would cancel the candidature of the concerned candidate.