V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN:
1. The candidature of the applicant, who desired to be SI (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and competed for the said post successfully, has since been cancelled vide order dated 16.06.2011. It is this order which has been challenged by him in this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The applicant applied for his appointment/recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police in Phase-II-2009 under OBC category. He successfully underwent the written test, interview and medical examination, and was thus provisionally selected. On 22.06.2010, the applicant submitted his attestation form for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents, wherein he clearly and specifically mentioned that he was involved in case FIR No.28 date 14.05.2001 u/s 323/324/325/258/34 IPC, PS Kasola Chowk, District Rewari, Haryana, wherein he was acquitted vide judgment dated 02.04.2005. However, he was served a show cause notice on 27.04.2011, wherein it was stated that his case had been examined in detail by the screening committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police, which did not approve his case for appointment in Delhi Police. It was stated in the notice that the committee while considering the case of the applicant had kept in view the attending circumstances leading to the commission of offence, nature of the offence, contents of the FIR, nature of injuries, type if the weapon used, judgment of the court and the grounds of acquittal, as also the role attributed to the applicant. The applicant responded to the show cause notice, but as mentioned above, his candidature has been cancelled.
3. The impugned order would show that after referring to the facts of the case, and a skeletal sketch of the reply of the applicant, the concerned authority proceeded to observe as follows:
“His written reply in detail has been considered and found that the candidate was named in the FIR showing his clear involvement alongwith others in beating and causing injuries to a lady and her family. Weapons like sword, farcy and even gun were used in the incident. The accused were acquitted only because the witnesses including the complainant turned hostile during the trial but there is enough material to show that the candidate had played an active role in assaulting the complainant and his family members. The fact of injuries actually having been inflicted is undisputed, being included in the FIR itself. The complaint has also been signed by the complainant as part of the FIR. His involvement in such a serious crime shows his criminal intent without fear of law. Such type of candidate, who has no respect for rule of law has no place in a disciplined force. As such, candidature of candidate Brahma Prakash, Roll No.618724 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.”
Available on records is judgment of the criminal court, whereby the applicant, who was tried along with one Chand Singh, under offences referred to above, was acquitted. Brief facts of the case as may emanate from the judgment, reveal that the accused on 13.05.2001 after 8.30 p.m. in the area of police station Kasola in Village Kathuwas, while armed with a gun and a farcy, in furtherance of their common intention, came to the house of the complainant, Abhey Singh, and voluntarily caused simple injuries to the PWs Abhey Singh, the complainant; Nawal Singh, father of the complainant; and Smt. Kaushaliya, sister-in-law of the complainant, with blunt weapons. Injured Abhey Singh and Nawal Singh also suffered grievous injuries with blunt weapons, besides suffering simple injuries with sharp weapon. The incident occurred as the accused wanted to teach the members of the complainant side a lesson for earlier demanding wages by the complainant on behalf of his brother Ved Prakash, who had done construction work for the accused. None of the PWs, out of the three examined by the prosecution, supported the prosecution case. No doctor was examined to know the nature of injuries. It was not known as to who out of the two accused was armed with sharp-edged weapon and who was armed with blunt weapon. Injuries suffered by the complainant and his father, be it with blunt weapon or sharp weapon, were simple in nature.
4. As in every case, so also in this, the respondents even though may have mentioned that the case has to be examined in view of the gravity of the offence, judgment of the court, grounds of acquittal, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.10.1996 in Civil appeal No.13231 of 1996 (arising out of SLP(C) No.5340 of 1996) DAD v Sushil Kumar, but while giving reasons, nothing in that regard has been even remotely mentioned. All that has been done is that basic part of the prosecution story has been mentioned, the same has been taken as gospel truth, and on the basis of recommendations of the screening committee, the applicant has been shown the exit door. The fact that the applicant was young at the time of the incident, which occurred eight years before the recruitment process started, and in the interregnum there was nothing against the applicant, was not taken into consideration. Inputs such as gravity of the offence, manner of commission of the crime, and the way and manner the applicant might have been acquitted, were also not taken into consideration.
5. We may, at this stage, mention that if in petty matters where the nature of offence may be the minimum of all the provisions in IPC, such as Section 323, which may be the minimum offence as regards causing bodily injuries, a person has to be deprived of public employment for life, then it is not known in what cases where a person may be involved in some or the other criminal case, the respondents will choose to appoint him. 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.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow this Original Application. Order dated 16.06.2011 cancelling the candidature of the applicant for the post of Sub Inspector (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 no back-wages be paid to him. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.