- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Police, Delhi And Another v. Dhaval Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent applied for appointment as a Constable during a special recruitment drive held on 21 / 27 August 1995. In the application form he placed a cross-mark in the column asking whether any criminal case was pending against him, thereby omitting the fact that an FIR No. 1 of 1993 under Sections 147/342/327/504 of the Indian Penal Code was pending. After successfully clearing the written test, physical endurance test, interview and medical examination, he realised the omission and, on 15 November 1995, voluntarily wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Police admitting the inadvertent error and requesting that his letter be treated as the required disclosure.
While police verification was in progress, the authorities confirmed the existence of the pending criminal case and, on 20 November 1995, cancelled the respondent’s candidature on the ground of concealment of material facts. Subsequently, on 8 December 1995, the trial court acquitted the respondent of all charges. His representation seeking reconsideration was rejected, prompting him to file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. On 22 November 1996, the Tribunal set aside the cancellation and directed that he be considered for appointment within three months. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition filed in April 1997. In the meantime, the respondent was reinstated pursuant to the Tribunal’s order. The present judgment disposes of the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent’s failure to disclose a pending criminal case in the application form, despite subsequently volunteering the information before cancellation, justified the cancellation of his candidature.
- Whether the precedent in “Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605” governs the present facts or is distinguishable.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The omission amounted to deliberate concealment, warranting cancellation of candidature.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, where candidature was cancelled in similar circumstances.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The omission was inadvertent; he voluntarily disclosed the pending case on 15 November 1995, prior to cancellation.
- Because the disclosure preceded both cancellation and subsequent acquittal, the defect in the form stood cured and should have been considered by the competent authority.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 | Candidature may be cancelled where the applicant fails to disclose involvement in criminal proceedings. | The Court distinguished the case, noting that in Sushil Kumar no voluntary correction was made by the candidate, whereas in the present case the respondent disclosed the omission before his candidature was cancelled. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the respondent had indeed left the relevant column blank, but emphasised that he voluntarily corrected the omission before any adverse action was taken. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, while cancelling the candidature on 20 November 1995, failed to consider the respondent’s communication of 15 November 1995. This amounted to non-application of mind and disregard of relevant material.
The Court examined the record and found no evidence that the competent authority had considered or disposed of the respondent's disclosure letter. Given that the information was provided voluntarily and prior to cancellation, the Court held that the cancellation order was unsustainable.
Addressing the appellant’s reliance on Sushil Kumar, the Court pointed out the material factual distinction: the absence of any voluntary disclosure in that case. Therefore, the precedent did not apply to the present facts.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision, though on slightly different reasoning centred on the authorities’ failure to consider the respondent’s timely disclosure.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing consideration of the respondent for appointment remains in force.
Implications: The respondent continues in service, and the judgment reinforces the principle that a candidate’s timely, voluntary correction of an inadvertent omission must be duly considered by the appointing authority. No new legal precedent was established beyond the specific factual matrix of this case.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Brief facts which are necessary for deciding this appeal are: that the respondent while seeking post of a Constable during the special recruitment drive is alleged to have concealed from mentioning in the Application Form, against the relevant column, that there was a criminal case pending against him. He had put a cross-mark in the relevant column. The Application Form was submitted by him on 21/27-8-1995. He was provisionally selected after passing the written test, physical endurance test and was interviewed, pending verification of his character. However, before any order of appointment could be issued in his favour, he, realising the mistake, wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 15-11-1995 in which he, inter alia, stated:
“I am to state that I have appeared in the special recruitment held at Moradabad, U.P on 21-8-1995 against Roll No. 1457 and declared successful. I have also gone through the medical examination and declared fit for the post of Constable (Exe.). I have to point out here that at the time of submission of Application Form I have inadvertently not mentioned the criminal case pending against me in the appropriate column. This has been done due to lack of knowledge. I may be excused for the above lapse and this application may be treated as an information from my side.”
4. It appears that in the meanwhile, the appellant had sought police verification on the conduct and character of the respondent. On verification, the Department came to know that a case being FIR No. 1 of 1993 under Sections 147/342/327/504 IPC was registered against the respondent at Police Station Agotta, District Bulandshahr. On the ground that the respondent had concealed a material fact from the Application Form which he had filled in, his candidature was cancelled on 20-11-1995. In the meanwhile, the respondent was acquitted in the said criminal case by the trial court vide judgment dated 8-12-1995. On being so acquitted, the respondent filed a representation before the Commissioner of Police for reconsideration of his case but that representation was turned down. The respondent, thereupon, filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Vide order dated 22-11-1996, the original application was allowed by the Tribunal. Both the orders of cancellation of candidature and the rejection of the representation were set aside and the Tribunal directed the appellants to consider offering appointment to the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed an SLP in this Court in April 1997. On 7-7-1997, the Court was informed that because of the order of the Tribunal, the respondent had been reinstated in service.
5. That there was an omission on the part of the respondent to give information against the relevant column in the Application Form about the pendency of the criminal case, is not in dispute. The respondent, however, voluntarily conveyed it on 15-11-1995 to the appellant that he had inadvertently failed to mention in the appropriate column regarding the pendency of the criminal case against him and that his letter may be treated as “information”. Despite receipt of this communication, the candidature of the respondent was cancelled. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police cancelling the candidature on 20-11-1995 shows that the information conveyed by the respondent on 15-11-1995 was not taken note of. It was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have considered that application and apply its mind to the stand of the respondent that he had made an inadvertent mistake before passing the order. That, however, was not done. It is not as if information was given by the respondent regarding the inadvertent mistake committed by him after he had been acquitted by the trial court — it was much before that. It is also obvious that the information was conveyed voluntarily. In vain, have we searched through the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the other record for any observation relating to the information conveyed by the respondent on 15-11-1995 and whether that application could not be treated as curing the defect which had occurred in the Form. We are not told as to how that communication was disposed of either. Did the competent authority ever have a look at it, before passing the order of cancellation of candidature? The cancellation of the candidature under the circumstances was without any proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant material. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly set it aside. We uphold the order of the Tribunal, though for slightly different reasons, as mentioned above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to a judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court on 4-10-1996 in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605. On the first blush, that judgment seems to support the case of the appellants but there is a material difference between the two cases. Whereas in the instant case, the respondent has conveyed to the appellant that an inadvertent mistake had been committed in not giving the information against the relevant column in the Form much before the cancellation of his candidature, in Sushil Kumar case (1996) 11 SCC 605 no such correction was made at any stage by the respondent. That judgment is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on facts.
7. Thus, for what we have said above, the appeal fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Alert