ANIL KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Anil Kumar, desiring to be a Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, successfully competed for the post, having cleared all the tests. However, after putting him to notice and having his reply, vide order dated 22.03.2011 his candidature has been cancelled for his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.190/2009 u/s 452/354/506 IPC pertaining to PS Kosli, District Rewari, Haryana. It is this order which is under challenge in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the applicant had revealed his involvement in the relevant columns of the application and attestation forms. His selection was provisional, subject to verification of character and antecedents etc. In that exercise, it appears, the matter went before the screening committee, on the recommendations of which, the concerned authority had put the applicant to notice, and, as mentioned above, cancelled his candidature. The applicant has annexed copy of the judgment dated 17.05.2010 passed by the criminal court, vide which he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Perusal of the judgment would reveal that insofar as Section 354 IPC is concerned, the same was compounded, but as regards Sections 452/506 IPC, the applicant was put to trial. On the statements of two main prosecution witnesses examined, i.e., complainant Dayaram PW -1 and the prosecutrix Meera PW -2, who turned hostile and did not thus support the prosecution version, the applicant was acquitted. The prosecution version as revealed in the judgment would show that on 12.10.2009 the applicant used criminal force on one Meera with the intent to outrage her modesty by entering in the house of the complainant Dayaram used as a human dwelling, and committed criminal intimidation by threatening to kill Meera and her family. Even though, in the impugned order it has been mentioned that the case of the applicant was examined in the context of the gravity of the offence, judgment of the court and grounds of acquittal, but the order would reveal that nothing in that context came to be observed by the concerned authority. Simply after referring to the inputs of the charge required to be looked into and the 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 after making a mention of the skeletal part of the reply to the show cause notice, what has been observed while rejecting the candidature of the applicant, is as follows: The plea(s) put forth by you in the reply have been considered and found not convincing because of the reasons that complainant Sh. Daya Ram was sleeping outside his house with his sons. His wife Meera and daughter were sleeping inside the house and entered into the house of the complainant and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife and succeeded to escape from the spot. Later on, the Honble Court vide its judgment dated 17 -5 -2010 acquitted you from the charge u/s 452/506 IPC as complainant Daya Ram (PW -1) and his wife Meera (PW -2) declared hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. The Screening Committee has observed that you trespassed into the house and outraged modesty of a woman. This shows your criminal propensity to commit such crimes and threat to public openly.

(3.) In number of matters, like the one in hand, 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. The applicant at the time he was alleged to have committed the crime would be a young person, and his age was one of the relevant considerations, which does not find even a remote mention in the impugned order. Insofar as, offence u/s 354 IPC is concerned, it may be mentioned that the matter was compounded between the parties. The offence under the said Section would be punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of two years. Further, from the prosecution version, as mentioned in the judgment, even if the same is taken to be true, it does not appear that the offence u/s 354 was committed at all. It may be recalled that the prosecution version has been that the applicant used criminal force on Meera with the intent to outrage her modesty by entering her house. The specific overt act as may be relatable to outraging modesty of Meera is completely missing. There does not appear to be any use of criminal force as well, as concededly, none of the inmates of the house, including Meera, were injured in the incident. 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.