DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY:
1. Under challenge is cancellation of candidature of a provisionally selected candidate for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police on the basis of a recruitment held in the year 2009. The cancellation has been done on the grounds of unsuitability as revealed from the criminal antecedents of the candidate. The OA has sought quashing the impugned cancellation order dated 3.2.2011 along with the show cause notice dated 16.8.2010 (Annex A/1 and A/2 respectively). Besides, directions for offering appointment to the applicant to the said post with all consequential benefits have been prayed for.
2. The character and antecedents verification report received in respect of the applicant had revealed a criminal case FIR No.114/2007 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC and under Section 134/187 MV Act P.S. Kanota, Rajasthan registered on 27.2.2007. The applicant was charge sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, where he had voluntarily pleaded guilty and the offences against him were held as substantiated. By the trial court’s order, the applicant was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, 500/-, 1000/- and Rs.500/- for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act respectively. In case of default in payment of fine he was to undergo 1 month, 15 days, 1 month and 10 days imprisonment respectively for the offences.
3. The fact of the criminal case had been disclosed by the applicant in his Application and the Attestation Forms. On examination of the matter by the Screening Committee constituted for this purpose by the Commissioner of Police, the view taken was that the applicant had been involved in rash and negligent driving of vehicle endangering human lives. Further, as was evident from the FIR and the judgment of the case that the applicant while driving a jeep pickup, had hit an auto rickshaw in which two persons travelling in that rickshaw had suffered serious injuries/fractures. Further, the charges had been substantiated before the trial court. In view of these facts, the view taken by the Screening Committee was that the conduct and attitude of the applicant rendered him unsuitable for appointment as Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police.
4. The applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 16.8.2010 against the proposed cancellation of candidature on the aforesaid grounds. Considering his reply dated 27.8.2010 and after giving him personal hearing, the order regarding cancellation of candidature was done vide the impugned order dated 3.2.2011.
5. Shri Ajesh Luthra, the learned counsel for the applicant would plead the offence in question to be a minor one, and not grave enough so as to warrant depriving the applicant of his well deserved appointment to a public post. It would be stated that there was no moral turpitude involved in the present case. An averment of there being no rule under the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules holding conviction and imposition of fine as a disqualification for appointment would also be made. Shri Luthra, the learned counsel would endeavour to explain the accident in the present case due to mechanical failure. Further, he would seek to make light of the applicant having voluntarily pleaded guilty before the criminal court. As per the learned counsel, the fact of the voluntary disclosure by the applicant of this criminal case in his Application Form and the Attestation Form bore a testimony to his bonafide conduct.
The OA has placed reliance on the Apex Court’s decision in Pawan Kumar vs State of Haryana and Anr {reported as (1996) 4 SCC 17}.
6. Opposing the claims in the OA, in their Counter Affidavit the respondents have reiterated the view taken by the Screening Committee and finally endorsed by the competent authority regarding the conduct and the attitude of the applicant rendering him as unsuitable for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. They have also emphasized the due observance of the principles of natural justice in the present case. In support the Apex Court’s decision in Daya Shankar Yadav vs UOI and Ors {CA No.9913/2010} has been relied upon. Besides, the decisions of the Tribunal dismissing certain OAs of applicants involved in criminal cases have also been cited.
7. As this issue has been the subject of judicial adjudication in a number of cases by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Delhi High Court as well as the Apex Court; this would need to be viewed within the broad development of law on the subject through judicial pronouncements. Besides, there would also be a need to distinguish the law on the subject from individual decisions in particular cases, depending upon the facts and circumstances therein.
7.1 The salient points of law as developed through some milestone judgments are briefly recounted below:
(a) In Civil Appeal No.13231 of 1996 (DAD V Susheel Kumar) it was held by the apex court that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State. Further, the view taken was that the fact of the applicant having been discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences had nothing to do with the question of his appointment instead what would be relevant was the conduct or character of a candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof.
The Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.6042-43 of 2005 and other connected Writ Petitions in the matter of Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors V Deepak Kumar and Ors decided on 28.11.2005 held that it was open for the Department to deny appointment to a person, who might have been acquitted in a criminal case. However, before taking such an action, the nature of offence and the manner of acquittal were needed to be properly examined.
In the OA 178/2008 (Anoop Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT and Anr) decided by a Coordinate Bench on 23.7.2008, it was impressed that the denial of appointment to a citizen for all times to come is indeed a serious matter and cannot be taken lightly. Reiterating the decision of the Delhi High Court in Deepak Kumar and Ors (supra) it had been held that the nature of offence and the manner of acquittal considering all attendant circumstances needed to be taken into account.
Daya Sharkar Yadav Vs UOI and Ors {CA No.9913 of 2010} even though this case had primarily pertained to the issue of non disclosure of criminal antecedents in the forms before the appointment; the Hon’ble Apex Court had also considered and endorsed the refusal of appointment to a prospective employee despite the requisite disclosures (in the affirmative) in the relevant forms.
In WP (C) 6145/2010 (Mahesh Dahiya Vs GNCTD and Anr) the Delhi High Court had reiterated that the issue had not to be decided with reference to a person being convicted or acquitted at a criminal trial. The nature of the acquittal, the quality of the evidence and the offence charged were held as requiring consideration.
The respondents have referred to the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the OA 4301/2010 (Surender Chahar Vs GNCTD and Ors) decided on 24.5.2011. It was held: As upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sushil Kumar’s case, what is important for this purpose is not the outcome of a criminal case but the conduct or character of a candidate. This again is to be determined considering the entire gamut of the attendant circumstances. Another OA relied upon is No.362/2011 (Gulab Singh Vs Delhi Police and Ors) decided on 5.8.2011. The view taken was that as rightly assessed by the respondents, the applicant who was having a criminal tendency, was not found suitable to be appointed in the Delhi Police which is a disciplined force. xxxxx. The Screening Committee is a body constituted by the Commissioner of Police to assess the suitability of such candidates. The Tribunal had not found any fault with the decision of the Screening Committee as approved by the Commissioner of Police to cancel the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police.
8. The facts of a case and the judgment of the Criminal Court assume key significance. A copy of the trial court’s judgment has been enclosed along with the OA as Annex A/4. The case had been registered on a written complaint pertaining to an incident on 26.2.2007. The complainant, Raj Lal Khichi had stated about his son Lokesh and nephew Jai Singh going in an auto rickshaw ( driven by the latter) for bringing school children at about 7.30 a.m., a loading jeep pickup had arrived from the wrong side in very high speed and had hit the auto rickshaw. This had caused serious injuries and fractures to Lokesh and Jai Singh besides damaging the auto rickshaw. In the complaint the registration number of the auto rickshaw, the jeep pickup as well as the exact location of the incident had been mentioned. It had also been stated that the injured had been taken to Saviai Man Singh Hospital and were still under treatment.
8.1 After the investigations, the charges were framed in the aforesaid offences. In course of trial, the following evidence was produced on behalf of the prosecution:-
“The charges u/s 279, 337, 338 IPC and 134/187 of M.V. Act were read over to the accused orally in brief but the same was denied and claimed trial, The prosecution recorded the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Om Parkash Meena and in documentary evidence the MLC Khem Singh, P-1, P-2 Jai Singh, P-3 X-ray report Khem Singh, Written Report P-4, FIR P-5, Site Plan P-6, statement u/s 1161 Cr.P.C. of Rajulal P-7, P-8 Kallu Khan, P-9 Chetan Kumar, P-10 Lokesh, P-11 Jai Singh, P-12 Lakki @ Khem Singh, P-13 Jai Ram P-14 Narender Kumar, MLC Lokesh P-15, X-report Lokesh P-15, Mechanical Inspection report P-16, P-17 and 18 Seizer Memo of Pick up, P-19 present status of auto rickshaw, P-20 seizer memo of documents, P-21 Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act were examined. The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the statement of witnesses admitted true and correct”.
The Ld. Court recorded the following findings:-
“In relation to the alleged offence Witness PW-1 Dr. Om Parkash Meena has been examined by the prosecution and he supported the story of the prosecution in his statement on oath and admitted the preparation of MLC P-1 Khem Singh, MLC P-2 Jai Singh and identified his signature at point-A to B and stated the injury no. 1 as per X-report of Khem Singh in serious nature.
On the other hand the accused has produced an application and also admitted the offence with his free will and admitted the P-1 to P-21 and accused has admitted guilty in his statement.
Therefore, the evidence available on record and the admission of offence by the accused on his own accord, the accused declared guilty for the commission of offence u/s 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 134/187 M.V. Act.”
However, considering that the offence had been committed for the first time and the applicant had admitted it on his own accord, a lenient view had been taken while giving the penalty.
9. The relevant point for consideration is that admittedly the applicant had been involved in rash and negligent driving and had caused an accident endangering human lives and inflicting serious injuries on persons. This has been established by the judgment of the trial court. The post under consideration is for Constable (Driver) under Delhi Police. The respondents, after looking into the facts of the case through a duly constituted mechanism, have found such a candidate as unsuitable for the post in question. Since the assessment of the character and conduct of a candidate is within the legitimate domain of the respondents, we do not find any basis for interfering with the present decision. The pleas taken on behalf of the applicant seeking to project the present offence as a minor one, in terms of the sentence imposed, would be missing the real point. Resultantly, considering the factual gamut of the case and the law as developed on the subject, we do not find any merit in the OA.
10. The OA is dismissed hereby with no orders as to costs.