Full Text
Translation output
$-42 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 10205/2017 & C.M. Nos. 41663-664/2017
-I- Petitioner
Through: Mr.-Himanshu Gupta, Advocate.
JIRENDRA KUMAR
W.P.(C) 10205/2017 & C.M. Nos. 41663-664/2017
-I- Petitioner
Through: Mr.-Himanshu Gupta, Advocate.
JIRENDRA KUMAR
VERSUS
Respondents UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Through: Ms. Supama Srivastava and Ms. Sanjna Dua, Advocates, with
Mr. Devendra Singh, Asst. Comdt. (CISF)
Through: Ms. Supama Srivastava and Ms. Sanjna Dua, Advocates, with
Mr. Devendra Singh, Asst. Comdt. (CISF)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI to fei) E R
17.11.2017 The petitioner seek&dssuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.09;'20T7i1ssuS,by the respondent No.3/CISF, deciding not to permit him to join ClSF-oh tlie post of Constables (GD) on the ground that
1. he was involved in a criminal case and therefore found unsuitable for the appointment.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/Staff
Selection Commission had issued an advertisement on 24.01.2015, for conducting examination for recruitment to the post of Constables (GD) in
Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Riflemen (GD) in
2.
Assam Rifles.
The petitioner applied for the said post and was declared as one ofthe selected candidates in terms of the result that was published by the
02.02.2017. The petitioner received an offer of
3. respondent No.2/SSC on appointment on 21.3.2017 and he was asked to report to duty on 05.06.2017.
Page 1 of4
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI to fei) E R
17.11.2017 The petitioner seek&dssuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.09;'20T7i1ssuS,by the respondent No.3/CISF, deciding not to permit him to join ClSF-oh tlie post of Constables (GD) on the ground that
1. he was involved in a criminal case and therefore found unsuitable for the appointment.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/Staff
Selection Commission had issued an advertisement on 24.01.2015, for conducting examination for recruitment to the post of Constables (GD) in
Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Riflemen (GD) in
2.
Assam Rifles.
The petitioner applied for the said post and was declared as one ofthe selected candidates in terms of the result that was published by the
02.02.2017. The petitioner received an offer of
3. respondent No.2/SSC on appointment on 21.3.2017 and he was asked to report to duty on 05.06.2017.
Page 1 of4
W.P.(C) 10205/2017
2017:DHC:8710-DB When the petitioner reported on 05.06.2017 along with the requisite documents, the respondent No.3/CISF did not permit him to join duty.
Subsequently, on 05.09.2017, the petitioner received the impugned order whereby he was informed that the competent authority had decided that he was unsuitable for appointment in the CISF on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a FIR was registered against two others and the petitioner. The provisions of law invoked against the petitioner were under.,Sections 341, 323, 354B, 34 of the IPC, Section
4.
\ ^ 3(2)(v) of Scheduled'Gastes und.Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 8 of Protectidhidf Child Protection of Children from Sexual
V
Offences (POSCO)-Act. ;^The-said FIR was registered after the date of the r jj petitioner submitting;hjs online application for recruitment and therefore, it is contended that l|e'couM nofhave been aware ofthe registration ofthe said
FIR, at the time of applyiii|tfofThe aforesaid recruitment.
After the^. criminal case n,was taken to trial, vide
2017:DHC:8710-DB When the petitioner reported on 05.06.2017 along with the requisite documents, the respondent No.3/CISF did not permit him to join duty.
Subsequently, on 05.09.2017, the petitioner received the impugned order whereby he was informed that the competent authority had decided that he was unsuitable for appointment in the CISF on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a FIR was registered against two others and the petitioner. The provisions of law invoked against the petitioner were under.,Sections 341, 323, 354B, 34 of the IPC, Section
4.
\ ^ 3(2)(v) of Scheduled'Gastes und.Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 8 of Protectidhidf Child Protection of Children from Sexual
V
Offences (POSCO)-Act. ;^The-said FIR was registered after the date of the r jj petitioner submitting;hjs online application for recruitment and therefore, it is contended that l|e'couM nofhave been aware ofthe registration ofthe said
FIR, at the time of applyiii|tfofThe aforesaid recruitment.
After the^. criminal case n,was taken to trial, vide
JUDGMENT
dated
5.
25.05.2017 passed'by'tSe feanied Special Judge, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan all
-'■'v.-... f-'t the three accused persons including the petitioner herein were given the benefit of doubt and consequently, acquitted. Learned counsel submits that in view ofthe fact that the petitioner was acquitted upon being given benefit of doubt, the respondents ought to have permitted him to join duty, as he had not been held guilty ofthe offences alleged against him.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the present petition and refers to the Guidelines dated 01.02.2012, issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for considering cases for all candidates where criminal cases are pending against them. She states
■N
{ i 6.
Page 2 of4
5.
25.05.2017 passed'by'tSe feanied Special Judge, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan all
-'■'v.-... f-'t the three accused persons including the petitioner herein were given the benefit of doubt and consequently, acquitted. Learned counsel submits that in view ofthe fact that the petitioner was acquitted upon being given benefit of doubt, the respondents ought to have permitted him to join duty, as he had not been held guilty ofthe offences alleged against him.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the present petition and refers to the Guidelines dated 01.02.2012, issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for considering cases for all candidates where criminal cases are pending against them. She states
■N
{ i 6.
Page 2 of4
W.R(C) 10205/2017 that Para 2(V) of the said Guidelines makes it clear that a candidate like the petitioner was not suitable for appointment in the CISF. For easy reference, the relevant extract ofthe said Guidelines is reproduced herein below:-
“2. (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 acquittedfor the reasons that the witness have turned hostile due tofear ofreprisal 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’. in which'the criminal court, while acquitting, has
However, cases categorically mentipnedf hat the criminal case would not be a bar on appointmentiniiSoyernment Services, the candidate shall be consideredfor appointment in the concerned CAPF.
‘ ( J ';i ;|
Involvement in minor offences, traffic violations, juvenile in conflict wiihjaw^firjedin open courts/Juvenile Justice Boards) and accident%;dspsfwillr.npt debar an individualfor appointment in CAPFs & ARs 'provided that appointments for the post of
Driver and those related to driving will not be offered to the individualsypunishpdfgr serjous traffic offences.
VI
If a candidate is discharged by extending the benefit under the Probation ofOffender Act, 1958, the suitability ofsuch candidate shall be put up for consideration of the selection committee as constituted by the DGs ofCAPFs & ARsfrom time to time for assessing his/her suitability for appointment in the concerned CAPF. ”
Pertinently, Annexure-A referred to in Para 2(V) above, lays down the crimes that are to be treated as serious offences or involve moral turpitude and includes an offence under Section 354 of IPC, with which the petitioner herein had been charged. Further, the aforesaid Annexure also describes
VIL
7.
Page 3 of4 such conduct of a candidate which amounts to moral turpitude, depravity etc. which is contrary to the social standard of morality and done with reckless, malicious or evil intent.
Given the facts of the present case, where grave allegations were levelled by the 12 years old victim against the petitioner and two others, for offences specified under Sections 341, 323, 354B IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC as also Section 8 of Protection of Child Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act, qua the petitioner, merely because he was given benefit ofdoubt and acquitted is not a ground for us to interfere in the impugned order (iated"65.09.2017 issued by the respondent No.3/CISF, declaring him as unsuitable for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the CISF.
8.
#
♦
5 .
. i Accordingly, the.,preseht petition is dismissed in limine as meritless
“2. (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 acquittedfor the reasons that the witness have turned hostile due tofear ofreprisal 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’. in which'the criminal court, while acquitting, has
However, cases categorically mentipnedf hat the criminal case would not be a bar on appointmentiniiSoyernment Services, the candidate shall be consideredfor appointment in the concerned CAPF.
‘ ( J ';i ;|
Involvement in minor offences, traffic violations, juvenile in conflict wiihjaw^firjedin open courts/Juvenile Justice Boards) and accident%;dspsfwillr.npt debar an individualfor appointment in CAPFs & ARs 'provided that appointments for the post of
Driver and those related to driving will not be offered to the individualsypunishpdfgr serjous traffic offences.
VI
If a candidate is discharged by extending the benefit under the Probation ofOffender Act, 1958, the suitability ofsuch candidate shall be put up for consideration of the selection committee as constituted by the DGs ofCAPFs & ARsfrom time to time for assessing his/her suitability for appointment in the concerned CAPF. ”
Pertinently, Annexure-A referred to in Para 2(V) above, lays down the crimes that are to be treated as serious offences or involve moral turpitude and includes an offence under Section 354 of IPC, with which the petitioner herein had been charged. Further, the aforesaid Annexure also describes
VIL
7.
Page 3 of4 such conduct of a candidate which amounts to moral turpitude, depravity etc. which is contrary to the social standard of morality and done with reckless, malicious or evil intent.
Given the facts of the present case, where grave allegations were levelled by the 12 years old victim against the petitioner and two others, for offences specified under Sections 341, 323, 354B IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC as also Section 8 of Protection of Child Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POSCO) Act, qua the petitioner, merely because he was given benefit ofdoubt and acquitted is not a ground for us to interfere in the impugned order (iated"65.09.2017 issued by the respondent No.3/CISF, declaring him as unsuitable for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the CISF.
8.
#
♦
5 .
. i Accordingly, the.,preseht petition is dismissed in limine as meritless
9. along with the pendihg^d^libations. HIMA KOHLI, J ,J RE NOVEMBER 17, 2017 na/ap Page 4 of4