Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. S.P Sharma and Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj
  • None.
Judges
  • Badar Durrez Ahmed
  • Siddharth Mridul, JJ.
Acts
  • Sections 147/341/323/427 IPC
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. S.P Sharma and Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj
  • None.
Judges
  • Badar Durrez Ahmed
  • Siddharth Mridul, JJ.
Acts
  • Sections 147/341/323/427 IPC
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition challenged the order dated 07.03.2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 1819/2011, which had quashed an earlier order dated 22.03.2011 that cancelled the candidature of Mehar Singh and directed that he be considered for appointment as Constable (Exe.) with the Delhi Police.

Mehar Singh applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) in the 2009 recruitment. He disclosed in his application and attestation form that he had been earlier allegedly involved in a 2004 criminal incident recorded as FIR No. 126/2004 under Sections 147/341/323/427 IPC at Police Station Buhana, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). Prior to his 2009 application, the offences under Sections 323/341/427 IPC had been compounded, and in the trial under Section 147 IPC he had been acquitted by the Trial Court on 30.01.2009 because prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether cancellation of Mehar Singh's candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) was justified in light of his acquittal in the trial under Section 147 IPC and compounding of the offences under Sections 323/341/427 IPC.
  2. Whether the Tribunal's order quashing the cancellation and directing consideration for appointment should be interfered with by this Court.

Arguments of the Parties

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

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Devender Kumar Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi: WP(C) No. 8731/2011 Followed as an earlier decision relevant to non-interference where a candidate had been acquitted/compounding of offences had occurred. The court followed this decision in concluding there was no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order quashing the cancellation of candidature.
Nawab Khan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi: WP(C) No. 2260/2011 Followed as an earlier decision relevant to non-interference where a candidate had been acquitted/compounding of offences had occurred. The court followed this decision in concluding there was no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order quashing the cancellation of candidature.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the factual record showing that Mehar Singh had fully disclosed his earlier alleged involvement in the 2004 incident in both his application and attestation form. It noted that offences under Sections 323/341/427 IPC had been compounded and that he had been acquitted in the trial under Section 147 IPC on 30.01.2009 because prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution's case.

On that basis the court held that the petitioner was wholly wrong to cancel the respondent's candidature. The court stated the legal position that once a person has been acquitted of offences for which he faced trial, that acquittal cannot be held against him in the context of his candidature. The court also relied on and followed its earlier decisions (including Devender Kumar Yadav and Nawab Khan) to support the conclusion that there was no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order quashing the cancellation.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition and issued directions for appointment in accordance with the Tribunal's order.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Direct consequences of the decision:

  • The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order quashing Mehar Singh's cancellation of candidature is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.
  • The petitioner (employer) is directed to issue an appointment letter to Mehar Singh within four weeks, subject to his being otherwise fit and completing all necessary formalities and requirements.
  • Mehar Singh is entitled to seniority as well as pay and allowances from the date he joins the service.

The opinion does not elaborate broader doctrinal implications; its effect as stated is the direct reinstatement/appointment direction for the respondent and upholding the Tribunal's order. No new precedent beyond the application of the court's earlier decisions is announced in the text of this opinion.

Show full summary ...

    Commissioner Of Police And Anr. Petitioners v. Mehar Singh

    This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.03.2012 passed in O.A No. 1819/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the order dated 22.03.2011 cancelling the candidature of the respondent Mehar Singh was quashed and the respondent was directed to be considered for appointment as Constable(Exe.) with the Delhi Police.

    The respondent Mehar Singh had applied for the post of Constable(Exe.) in Delhi Police in the recruitment which took place in the year 2009. The respondent had mentioned the fact that he had been earlier allegedly involved in a criminal case, namely, FIR No. 126/2004 under Sections 147/341/323/427 IPC registered at Police Station-Buhana, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). The alleged incident was of the year 2004 and prior to the respondent Mehar Singh applying for the post of Constable(Exe.) in the year 2009, the said respondent had already been acquitted by the Trial Court on 30.01.2009 insofar as the offence u/s 147 IPC was concerned. Earlier, the offences under Sections 323/341/427 IPC had been compounded. It is clear that the respondent Mehar Singh had made a clear mention both in the application form as well as in the attestation form with regard to his earlier alleged involvement in the said criminal incident which had taken place five years ago in 2004. It has already been mentioned that the offences under Sections 323/341/427 IPC had been compounded and that in the trial under Section 147 IPC, the said respondent had been acquitted inasmuch as the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

    We find that the petitioner was entirely wrong in cancelling the candidature of the respondent Mehar Singh in these circumstances. Once the respondent Mehar Singh had been acquitted of the offences for which he had faced trial, the same cannot be held against him. Consequently, following our earlier decisions in the case of Devender Kumar Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi: WP(C) No. 8731/2011, Nawab Khan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi: WP(C) No. 2260/2011 and other similar decisions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

    The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

    As we have directed in the case of Devender Kumar (supra) and several other similar matters, the petitioner is directed to issue an appointment letter to the respondent within four weeks subject to his otherwise being fit and completing all necessary formalities and requirements. The respondent would be entitled to seniority as well as pay and allowances from the date he joins the service.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Commissioner Of Police And Anr. Petitioners v. Mehar Singh
    (Jul 9, 2012)