Commissioner Of Police And Anr. Petitioners v. Mehar Singh

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

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.