AJAY KUMAR DHAMA 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 22.03.2011, vide which his candidature has been cancelled.

(2.) The candidature of the applicant has been cancelled because of his involvement in a criminal case, which fact, it is admitted, was disclosed while seeking appointment on the post aforesaid. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that scrutiny of the application and attestation forms of the applicant revealed that he had disclosed in the relevant columns the fact as regards his involvement in a criminal case, and, therefore, the case 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, and that the applicant was not found suitable for police service by the committee. It is then mentioned that on 30.11.2008, when the complainant Yash Pal along with his son Anil, nephew Mohit and brother Jagpal were going towards their fields, when accused persons, namely, Ranbir, Pramod, Prashant, Rameshwar and the applicant came there, and that the applicant, Ranbir and Pramod were armed with country made fire arms. Ranbir fired at complainants brother Jagpal, and the applicant fired at his nephew Mohit. Complainant and his son Anil raised alarm and they were rescued by villagers, namely, Yashvir, Tajender etc. Accused Ranbir was caught on the spot along with country made fire arm, while the applicant, Pramod and Prashant fled away from the scene on a motor cycle. It is then mentioned that the applicant was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt by the concerned court on 08.10.2009, as the complainant and other material witnesses did not depose in tune with the prosecution version.

(3.) The applicant responded to the show cause notice vide a long reply, reference wherein has been given of several decisions of the Tribunal, the High Court of Delhi and the Apex Court as well. In the impugned order cancelling the candidature of the applicant, as regards his role in the crime, all that has been mentioned is that the applicant had cited various judgments with the request to appoint him on the post of Constable (Exe.). Thereafter, it is simple reproduction of the prosecution version, and the pleas of the applicant, be it on facts or law, have not been taken into consideration, and it is observed that the applicant has not been found fit for appointment on the post aforesaid.