Sanjeev Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J AUGUST 11, 2011 pk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11th August, 2011 + W.P.(C) 5782/2011 SANJEEV KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shankar Raju, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Reeta Kaul, Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ The present writ petition frescoes a different situation and projects the chequered history it has. The petitioner was selected for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2002. Regard being had to his antecedents, the respondent did not extend the benefit of appointment in his favour. Being dissatisfied with the same, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short "the tribunal") in OA No.639/2004 and the tribunal lanceted the order passed by the authorities declining to take him on service and issued a command to appoint him. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred the writ petition No.8016-17/2005. It is worth noting, the said writ petition was disposed of along with other writ petitions keeping in view the commonality of the factual matrix. A Division Bench of this Court, taking into consideration the concept of signification of antecedents in a disciplined force, passed the following order: "The findings recorded by the Tribunal in the present case that whether it is an honourable acquittal or on benefit of doubt has little impact in the service career of the said person is in our considered opinion not appropriate as in the service law, a distinction is always made with regard to the honourable acquittal and acquittal on benefit of doubt, particularly in respect of payment of consequential benefits of some of the service employees, wherein it is provided that if it is honourable acquittal the concerned person will be entitled to full arrears of pay and wages whereas it is provided that if it is honourable acquittal the concerned person will be entitled to full arrears of pay and wages whereas if it is only acquittal on benefit of doubt, he may be deprived of payment of arrears of pay and allowances for the period during which he was under suspension. The same is recognized under law and also approved and upheld by the Supreme Court for which we may appropriately refer to the decisions of this Court in the case of S.P. Thukral v. Delhi Development Authority, LPA No.2066/2005 decided on 6th October, 2005. However considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the fact that in some other cases the Commissioner of Police has allowed the applicants to join the post considering the gravity of the offence in which they were involved and also the nature of the order passed by the criminal court, we feel that it would be appropriate, if all these matters are remitted back to the Commissioner of Police who shall appreciate the nature and gravity of the offence in which the respondents were involved and the manner in which they were acquitted. Upon consideration of such facts if it is found that they could be allowed to join and work against the post of Constables, they should be allowed to join their posts but their order of appointment would be effective from their joining with no claim at all with regard to the arrears of pay and allowances or seniority. Even after such appreciation of all the facts and circumstances of the cases, if it is found by the Commissioner of Police that respondents cannot be so appointed as they are not suitable and desirable persons to be appointed to the post of Constable, he shall pass an appropriate order giving reasons for such decision." 3. After the said order came to be passed, the Commissioner of Police passed an order b