Manoj Kumar v. The Commissioner of Delhi Police

SANJIV KHANNA, J. dk/kapil

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 8th April, 2011 % Judgment Pronounced on: July 04, 2011 + WP (C) No. 1528/2011 MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Adv. Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhawa, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legal acceptability of the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short "the tribunal") in OA No. 2482/2010. 2. The brief resumé of facts which are imperative to be stated are that in response to an advertisement dated 11.10.2007 issued by the respondent, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police. He had submitted his application form on 22.11.2007 and attestation form on 25.9.2008. After clearing all the tests as well as interview, he was declared provisionally selected subject to verification of his character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents. On receipt of the verification report dated 10.11.2008 relating to his character and antecedents, it was found that he had been involved in a criminal case FIR No.156/99 dated 29.9.1999 under Sections 332/353/341/186 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") P.S. Kharkhoda, Haryana but he had not disclosed his involvement / acquittal in the above mentioned case in the relevant columns of application as well as attestation form. A show cause notice was issued to him on 13.3.2009 proposing cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver). On receipt of the explanation of the petitioner, the appointing authority did not find the explanation given by him to be convincing and satisfactory and, accordingly, his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) was cancelled by order dated 4.5.2009. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, he submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Police which was rejected on 20.8.2009. 3. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, the petitioner preferred O.A. No.2595/1999 and the said application was decided on 19.5.2010 whereby the tribunal quashed the order dated 20.8.2009 and directed the competent authority to pass a detailed speaking order. In pursuance of the directions given by the tribunal, the case of the petitioner was re-examined and the competent authority, taking note of the fact that on two different occasions he had concealed the fact of his having been involved in a criminal case, opined that he was not considered suitable for appointment in a disciplined force like the Delhi Police. Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred OA No.2482/2010 on the grounds that he was acquitted by the concerned court on merits in the year 2000 seven years prior to applying for the post and, hence, the same cannot be a disqualification for his appointment; that mentioning of the word "NO" in the relevant column of the application and attestation form was a bonafide mistake and an error of judgment as he was not going to get any benefit from such concealment; that the non-disclosure of information relating to a criminal case in which he had been acquitted was no ground for withholding appointment; and that under similar circumstances, one Constable Kapil Kumar had been recruited but the petitioner had been treated in a different manner which tantamounts to discrimination. 4. The respondent, in oppugnation, contended that the case of the petitioner had been examined carefully by the competent authority and regard being had to the concealment, a conscious decision was taken. It was averred that on two sepa