O.A. 2083/2008, M.A.1521/2008. Case: Dharam Veer Singh, Rajasthan Vs 1. Government of Nct of Delhi, Chief Secretary, New Delhi, 2. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. 2083/2008, M.A.1521/2008 |
| Counsel | Shyam Babu, Renu George |
| Judges | M. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman) & N. D. Dayal (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | April 21, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
M. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman), (Principal Bench Delhi)
-
By Annexure 'A' dated 20.08.2008, candidature of the applicant for being considered for the post of Constable in Delhi Police has been cancelled. He had responded against a recruitment held in the year 2006. In the preliminary rounds, he got through, of course, subject to medical fitness to be adjudged and verification of details and such other formalities.
-
According to the respondents, in the course of verification, it had been found that two criminal cases had been registered against applicant at Police Station Mundawar. In both cases, it had been noticed that he had been acquitted on benefit of doubt and with a declaration that his case needed to be dealt with, as envisaged under the Probation of Offenders Act. Taking notice of the circumstances, a show cause notice had been issued. The memo so issued alleged that he had not disclosed the details of the criminal cases in his application, although he was expected to specifically answer the concerned query. This, therefore, amounted to deliberate furnishing of false information and he was to explain as to why this was not to operate as a disqualification as per the terms of notification.
-
The explanation submitted was not found acceptable. While disposing of the matter finally, the Deputy Commissioner of Police had found that, of course, the applicant had disclosed the involvement in the attestation form filled on 06.12.2006. But it had been suggested that a mala fide mind had been involved which could not have gone unnoticed. Ultimately, therefore, he was found as unsuitable for being accommodated.
-
According to the applicant, an appeal had been filed, as provided by the rules, but in spite of reminders there was no response forthcoming. It was in this context that Original Application had come to be filed.
-
The respondents have justified their stand pointing out that the conduct of the applicant in suppressing the details at the very inception, goes to show that he is not honest and is not fit to be inducted into a disciplined force. True, at the time of attestation, the details were disclosed but that cannot be solace or reason to altogether ignore the suppression that had initially been practiced. The counsel claims that the decision had duly taken notice of all other aspects. It is also submitted that the representation submitted by the applicant had been examined by the Police Headquarters and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial