close
close

Delhi High Court Appoints Candidate as SI: ‘Grounds of Acquittal Must Be Strictly Examined Before Rejection’

Delhi High Court Appoints Candidate as SI: ‘Grounds of Acquittal Must Be Strictly Examined Before Rejection’

A Section Loom Delhi High Court consisting of Judges C Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain Set aside the Screening Committee Decision canceling the appointment of a candidate based on an FIR lodged against him. Despite the acquittal, the Screening Committee had annulled the applicant’s appointment to the post of SI. The Board decided that the Review Committee should review the Court’s decision acquitting the plaintiff to determine on what basis the plaintiff was acquitted.

Background

The petitioner was accused of Robbery on 12 July 2011 and an FIR was filed against him. He has been charged with offenses under Sections 398 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The plaintiff was ultimately acquitted on 8 November 2012 because the prosecution failed to prove its case for the following reasons: lack of evidence.

Later, in 2017, the Petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) (Male) in Delhi Police by the Delhi Police Examination 2017 to be conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. It was announced that the petitioner was provisionally elected to the post based on the final result of the PPE issued by the SSC on November 3, 2018. However, some formalities had to be carried out, such as determining the candidates’ character, verifying their background information, and checking documents. The applicant had informed the authorities about the filing and acquittal of the FIR while applying for the said post.

A Show Cause Notice was served on the petitioner to show cause as to why his candidacy was liable to be rejected in view of his name being included in the FIR. He responded by stating that the charges against him were false and that he was honorably acquitted of the alleged crimes.

However, despite the response, the appointment of the plaintiff as SI was canceled on 24 September 2019, as the acquittal of the plaintiff was possible due to the fact that no independent police witnesses participated and the prosecution was unable to build the case against him due to the arrest of all disabled people. police officers. Meanwhile, the Review Committee observed that the applicant was accused of a serious crime and his “criminal tendencies involving contempt for the law” made him unfit for appointment to the post of Police Constable.

Aggrieved by the Dismissal Decision, the applicant applied to the Central Administrative Court. The court relied on decisions of the state Supreme Court Madhya Pradesh – Bunty, Commissioner of Police – Raj Kumar and UOI – Methu Meda and made some observations. The Court observed that the Screening Committee may recommend the case of a candidate who was involved in criminal proceedings and was acquitted by the competent Court after due consideration. The court rejected the application, deciding that there was no irregularity in the decision to cancel the applicant’s appointment.

Finally, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Opinions of the Parties:

Referring to certain paragraphs of the decision of the Single Judge, the Plaintiff’s Counsel held that the plaintiff was acquitted because the prosecution failed to establish a case against the plaintiff and doubt was cast upon him. Describing the prosecution’s claim as “highly doubtful”, the Advocate argued that there were material inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and that there was no explanation as to why no independent witnesses participated.

To justify the allegations made, he relied on the decisions in the Lawyer M case.ahesh Kumar v UOI, Joginder Singh v Chandigarh UT And Pramod Singh Kirar and Member of Parliament State.

On the other hand, the Respondent’s Counsel submitted that in such cases, especially where the appointment relates to the Delhi Police, the decision of the Screening Committee must be followed.

Findings of the Court:

The court referred to the Standing Order stating the Guidelines in Article 3 that an appointment to the Delhi Police can be set aside even if the candidate is acquitted or dismissed in the criminal case and the acquittal does not necessarily entitle the candidate. to be appointed to office. Under the Rules of Procedure, the Screening Committee, in deciding matters relating to the appointment of candidates, had to consider:

(a) the candidate’s background;

(b) The suitability of the candidate for appointment,

(c) whether the candidate was acquitted honorably or due to “consensus/benefit of the doubt/hostility of witnesses”;

(d) the nature and gravity of the accusation against the candidate.

The court also held that the Standing Order distinguished between honorable acquittal, acquittal by compromise, benefit of the doubt, and hostile conduct of witnesses.

Observing that the Tribunal found the Petitioner unfit for office after adhering to the principles set out in the Rules of Court, the Court referred to several important decisions, including: Mahesh Kumar v UO, Joginder Singh v UT of Chandigarh, Pramod Singh Kirar v State of MP, State of Rajasthan v Love Kush Meena, State of MP v Bhupendra Yadav and a few others.

Based on the above-mentioned decisions, the Court observed that the Supreme Court had held that candidates who have been honorably acquitted by the Court can claim the right to appointment, while on the other hand, candidates who have been acquitted for failure to prove the prosecution’s case can claim the right to appointment. or if the witnesses act hostile, it is not possible for the candidate to claim such a right.

The court decided that it was important to determine the basis on which the candidate was acquitted in the decided case.

Going into details of how the candidate was acquitted, the Court stated that in the present case the prosecution had “miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt” and that the petitioner was entitled to acquittal. Moreover, since the ASJ clearly stated that the plaintiff was innocent of the allegations, the Court held that the case was undoubtedly misplaced and unsustainable. The court stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations made against the applicant.

Moreover, the Court noted that the Review Committee did not consider all the elements of the case and only looked at the ASJ’s decision acquitting the plaintiff from a holistic perspective.

Stating that the decision to acquit the petitioner was ‘clean’, the Court observed that the Screening Committee’s decision was made on the basis of presumption and failed to appreciate the decision of the ASJ.

Having made these observations, the Court held that the Screening Committee had not implemented its opinion and therefore set aside the order of the Court directing the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner to the post of SI.

Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Case Title: MANISH SAINI vs NCT DELHI AND ANR GOVERNMENT

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Manisha Parmar and Mr. Kapil Chaudhary, Advocates

Defendants’ Counsel: Mr. Kshitij Chhabra

Click Here to Download the Decision/Decision