Delhi Administration Through Its Chief Secretary And Others v. Sushil Kumar ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 13231 of 1996, decided on October 4, 1996

Disposition

allowed

Attorney(S)

P.A Chaudhary, Senior Advocate (D.V Padurpuja and B.K Prasad, Advocates, with him) for the Appellants;
Sanjay Kapur and Ms Shubhra Kapur, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Judges

Justice K. Ramaswamy
Justice S.P. Kurdukar

Acts

Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent participated in the 1989-90 recruitment process for the post of Constable in the Delhi Police (Roll No. 65790). He successfully cleared the physical endurance test, written examination, and interview, and was provisionally selected subject to verification of his character and antecedents by the local police. The subsequent verification revealed adverse antecedents, leading the appointing authority to cancel his provisional selection by proceedings dated 18-12-1990.

Challenging the cancellation, the respondent filed Original Application (OA No. 1756 of 1991) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. On 6-9-1995, the Tribunal allowed the OA, reasoning that because the respondent had been discharged or acquitted of offences under Sections 304, 324, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he could not be denied appointment. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, resulting in the present decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an appointing authority may refuse appointment to a candidate who has been discharged or acquitted in criminal cases, on the ground of unsatisfactory character and antecedents.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing reconsideration of the respondent’s candidature despite the adverse antecedent report.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court emphasized that verification of character and antecedents is a critical component in assessing the suitability of a candidate for public service, especially for posts within a disciplined force such as the police. The Court noted that:

The respondent’s physical fitness and success in written and interview stages only entitled him to provisional selection; final appointment was expressly contingent upon a satisfactory antecedent report.
An acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not automatically negate concerns regarding a candidate’s conduct or character; the appointing authority retains discretion to evaluate overall suitability.
The appointing authority’s decision to withhold appointment on the basis of the respondent’s antecedents was therefore neither arbitrary nor unwarranted.
The Tribunal’s directive for reconsideration ignored the distinction between the outcome of criminal proceedings and the broader evaluation of suitability for police service, and was consequently improper.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; TRIBUNAL'S ORDER SET ASIDE.

Direct Effect: The respondent’s provisional selection stands cancelled, and no appointment will be made.

Broader Implications: The judgment affirms that an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not preclude the State from denying appointment on grounds of unsatisfactory character and antecedents, reinforcing the discretionary power of appointing authorities in sensitive services.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Delhi Administration Through Its Chief Secretary And Others v. Sushil Kumar .

Order

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on 6-9-1995 in OA No. 1756 of 1991. The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90 with Roll No. 65790. Though he was found physically fit through endurance test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police. On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Aggrieved by proceedings dated 18-12-1990 culminating in cancellation of his provisional selection, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.

4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal stands set aside. No costs.

Delhi Administration Through Its Chief Secretary And Others v. Sushil Kumar .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Delhi Administration Through Its Chief Secretary And Others v. Sushil Kumar .

Comments