Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2162 (DEL)

Satish Kumar v. Union of India

2013-11-08

DEEPA SHARMA, GITA MITTAL

body2013
Judgment : Gita Mittal, J. (Oral) 1. By way of the instant writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26th September, 2011 and whereby the respondents have held that the petitioner was not suitable for recruitment in the Central Industrial Security Force on account of his implication in a criminal prosecution. The petitioner also assails the order dated 6th January, 2012 passed by the respondents to the legal notice served by the petitioner challenging the above decision. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement issued in September, 2010, he had applied for the direct recruitment to the post of ASI/Pharmacist in CISF as a General Category candidate. He was successful in the written examination conducted by the respondent on 10th October, 2010 whereafter he was required to report to the National Industrial Security Academy (NISA), Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad with original certificates/testimonials for undergoing Physical Standard Test (PST), Basic Vocational Aptitude Test and the Basic Vocational Aptitude Test (BVAT) as well as interview etc. 3. It is undisputed before us that the application form for recruitment to be filled by the petitioner required information to be given with regard to conviction by a court or judicial institution; pendency of a case in court of law; lodging of FIR and pendency of the case arising therefrom and in addition full details of the FIR; police station; whether charge sheet was submitted or returned; if the case was charge sheeted, then what was the outcome/information in the court, that had to be given in Appendix B to the application form. 4. The respondents have placed the original application form dated 6th September, 2010 which was filled by the petitioner duly signed by him. The petitioner has responded in the negative to all the queries made by the respondents. 5. It is the admitted position that when the petitioner reported to the training institute at Hyderabad, he was required to fill another questionnaire which is dated 19th August, 2011. In this questionnaire, the petitioner disclosed that FIR under Section 417 and 419 of the IPC was registered against him by Police Station Hissar, Haryana. The petitioner, however, did not reveal the number of the case despite a specific query contained in the form. In reply to the query, as to whether he was charge sheeted, the petitioner had endorsed that no charge sheet was issued. 6. The petitioner, however, did not reveal the number of the case despite a specific query contained in the form. In reply to the query, as to whether he was charge sheeted, the petitioner had endorsed that no charge sheet was issued. 6. The petitioner wrote a representation dated 21st August, 2011 to the Chairman of the Recruitment Board of the CISF at Hyderabad stating that an FIR was registered against him in the year 2005 under Section 417 and 419 of the IPC due to a cheating case in the Haryana Agricultural University (Hissar) under FIR no. 217. The petitioner also submitted that the case was cleared in April, 2009 as the court could not find proof against the petitioner and that he would produce the original copy of the order. The petitioner prayed that the respondents considered his candidature after receipt of the original clearance. The respondents kept the matter of issuance of offer of appointment to the petitioner in abeyance by a communication dated 25th August, 2011. He was called upon to submit the original documents. 7. After examination of the judgment in the case lodged against the petitioner, the respondents took a decision that the acquittal from the criminal charge was sufficient to render petitioner unfit for appointment in the CISF it being the Central Armed Police Force of the Union which was communicated to the petitioner by the letter dated 26th September, 2011. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Before dealing with the contentions relating to the allegations against the petitioner, it is necessary to note the fact that in Appendix B of the original application form, the petitioner has deliberately concealed the entire information with regard to the case against him which was then pending. As noted above, this form was filled up by him on 6th September, 2010. Even in the questionnaire form which was filled by him at Hyderabad on 19th August, 2011, the petitioner had concealed all material facts which would enable the respondents to take a considered view with regard to the suitability of the petitioner for recruitment in a disciplinary force as the Central Industrial Security Force. FIR no.271 was registered against the petitioner on 9th July, 2005. It is apparent that the case was pending when the questionnaire was filed on 19th August, 2011. 9. FIR no.271 was registered against the petitioner on 9th July, 2005. It is apparent that the case was pending when the questionnaire was filed on 19th August, 2011. 9. In his representation dated 21st August, 2011, the petitioner has again mentioned that the case has been cleared in April, 2009 in order to create an impression that the petitioner was free from the charge before recruitment process. The above narration would show that the concealment on the part of the petitioner was certainly wilful and malafide and he is disentitled to any relief in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. There is yet another reason which would disentitle the petitioner to any relief. The respondents have pointed out that the petitioner was charged for commission of an offence punishable under Section 417 and 419 of the IPC. The judgment dated 9th March, 2011 passed by the learned trial court noted the allegations by the complainant which were to the effect that one Dharmender Singh son of Sh.Bhagwan was found impersonating for the petitioner at the time of entrance examination of VLD which was held in the Campus School, CCS HAU, Hissar. Dr.V.K.Madan, the invigilator had appeared as PW1 before the court and had identified the petitioner present in court as the person involved. The trial court disregarded this evidence only on the ground that no other person had been examined to support these allegations and that the prosecution had failed to tender the roll number slip/date sheet etc. in the evidence. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has placed before us the copy of policy dated 1st February, 2012 framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs which provides the guidelines for considering cases of candidates for appointments in CAPFs against whom criminal case had been registered and the effect thereof. 12. Our attention has been drawn to paras II, III (a) and V which read as follows: “II. If a candidate does not disclose his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal case (s), complaint case (s), preventive proceedings etc. under IPC or any other Act of the Central or State Government in the application form but disclose the same during medical examination/PET and/or in the attestation/verification form, in writing, the candidature will not be cancelled on this ground alone. III. under IPC or any other Act of the Central or State Government in the application form but disclose the same during medical examination/PET and/or in the attestation/verification form, in writing, the candidature will not be cancelled on this ground alone. III. The candidate will not be considered for recruitment, if: (a) Such involvement/case/arrest is concerned with an offence mentioned in Annexure-A; ...... V. Notwithstanding the provisions of 3(III) above, such candidates against whom chargesheet in a criminal case has been filed in the court and the charges fall in the category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though later on acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or acquitted for the reasons that the witness have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person(s), he/she will generally not be considered suitable for appointment in the CAPF. The details of crimes which are serious offences or involve moral turpitude are at Annexure ‘A’. However, cases in which the criminal court, while acquitting, has categorically mentioned that the criminal case would not be a bar on appointment in Government Services, the candidate shall be considered for appointment in the concerned CAPF.” 13. The respondents have set out in Annexure A the offences under the Indian Penal Code which are considered as serious offences or involving moral turpitude. At sl.no.9, the respondents have specifically included offences under Sections 417 and 419 of the IPC with which the petitioner was charged. 14. We may also refer to a very recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 2861 Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Anr. vs. Mehar Singh wherein the issue which has been raised before us was considered by the Supreme Court of India. In this judgment, the court considered acquittal of one of the respondents seeking appointment to the Delhi Police force. The factual narration and observations of the court on the claim of this respondent based on his acquittal deserve to be considered in extenso and read thus: “23. So far as respondent - Shani Kumar is concerned, the FIR lodged against him stated that he along with other accused abused and threatened the complainant’s brother. They opened fire at him due to which he sustained bullet injuries. Offences under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC were registered against respondent - Shani Kumar and others. So far as respondent - Shani Kumar is concerned, the FIR lodged against him stated that he along with other accused abused and threatened the complainant’s brother. They opened fire at him due to which he sustained bullet injuries. Offences under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC were registered against respondent - Shani Kumar and others. Order dated 14/5/2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar shows that the complainant and the injured person did not support the prosecution case. They were declared hostile. Hence, learned Sessions Judge gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. This again is not a clean acquittal. Use of firearms in this manner is a serious matter. For entry in the police force, acquittal order based on benefit of doubt in a serious case of this nature is bound to act as an impediment.” 15. In view of the above, the narration in the judgment dated 9th March, 2010 and the ground on which the Trial Court had premised the acquittal of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of his acquittal in support of the assertion that the implication in the criminal case as well as the trial which the petitioner has faced cannot impact his appointment with the Central Industrial Force. 16. The fact is that the petitioner was implicated in a case under Section 417 and 419 of the IPC which squarely fall within the prohibition under the policy dated 1st February, 2012. 17. Even if it could be argued that the policy would not have any application as the petitioner was being considered for recruitment in the year 2010, however, the principles laid down therein with regard to offences are to be considered as serious offences and/or involving moral turpitude support the view of the respondents that the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner render him unsuitable for recruitment with them. 18. For all the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition and the applications are dismissed.