V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN:
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 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 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.
4. We find the impugned order passed in this case similar to several cases which have been dealt with by us, wherein bare minimum facts emanating from the prosecution version are stated, a cryptic mention of the reply filed by the candidate concerned is reproduced, and by accepting the prosecution version as gospel truth, the order of cancellation of candidature of the candidate is passed. Even though, the respondents would mention that nature of offence, the manner of commission of crime, the way and manner of acquittal etc. need to be examined, but nothing in that regard is ever done. Available on records is the judgment of the criminal court, which would reveal that the applicant and three others were put to trial u/s 148/149/323/341/427/506 IPC. The FIR in the case came to be recorded on the statement of the driver of the bus who stated that he was driver and one Sajjan Singh was working with him as conductor. Mahender Singh, brother of the owner of the bus Satnarain, was also traveling in the bus. At about 8-8.15 pm he was going to Sihma from Kanina while driving the bus. All passengers traveling in the bus alighted, whereas only four young persons, namely, Lala Ram’s son, Balwan’s son, Sunil and Sanjay boarded the bus. When the bus reached near canal, 8-10 children were standing on the road side holding dandas in their hands. They broke open the windowpanes of the bus while hitting the dandas on the front glass of the bus. The persons who were traveling in the bus had also caused injuries without any reason. They hit the complainant with fist blows and also slapped on is face. When he raised alarm, all persons alighted from the bus and fled away. While leaving, they had also caused injuries to Mahender Singh. All the boys were residents of village Mundiya Khera. It was also stated that one bag containing Rs.35000/- was found missing from the bus. During the course of investigation, no offence was made out against the accused u/s 379 IPC, as it came in evidence that no amount had been stolen by the accused. On the statement made by the driver, FIR No.164 came to be registered on 25.07.2002. Charge u/s 323/341/427/506/34 IPC was framed. The prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the applicant and others examined Mohar Singh, complainant (PW-1), Mahender Singh (PW-2) and Babu Lal (PW-3). The public prosecutor thereafter closed the evidence. The witnesses did not support the prosecution version, particularly in identifying the accused, and, therefore, an order of acquittal came to be recorded by the concerned learned Magistrate on 28.05.2007.
5. We are rather distressed to note that even though, the prosecution version has been taken as gospel truth, yet the facts, even as they may emanate from the FIR, have not been correctly stated in the impugned order. Two significant aspects in that regard, which need pertinent mention, would be that in the FIR no accused was named, whereas in the impugned order, mention is of the applicant and others; and secondly, the allegation as regards beating, as mentioned in the FIR, is not attributed to the applicant and those who were outside the bus, but it is attributed to those 4-5 persons who were still in the bus. Further, even during investigation, it was found that it was not a case of theft, as the bag containing Rs.35000/- was not stolen, and that the applicant was not even charged u/s 379 IPC. What thus remains is that 8-10 children, which might include the applicant as well, had broken the window panes of the bus from the front side. The incident is of 2002, seven years before the applicant made application for his appointment as Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police. We are informed that he was less than 17 years of age at the time of the commission of crime. If the respondents might have properly scrutinized the facts of the case, and even if believed the prosecution version as a gospel truth, the offence would be only breaking window panes of the bus from the front side, and nothing more, nothing less. As to how the case would be covered u/s 148/149 IPC is not understandable. There are no allegations which may constitute an offence u/s 506 IPC as well. Even the charge, as mentioned above, was not framed u/s 379.
6. 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.
7. 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 and another v Dinesh Kumar, decided on 11.11.2010, wherein, in consideration of the facts of the case before it, the Hon’ble 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 and others, decided on 20.01.2012.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow this Original Application. Order dated 11.05.2011 cancelling the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider appointment of the applicant on the said post, and appoint him if he is otherwise found fit. Let the exercise as ordained above be completed as expeditiously as possible and definitely within a period of six weeks from today. If in such consideration, the applicant is appointed, his seniority would count from the date when others with whom he appeared, were appointed, but he would not be entitled to back-wages. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.