W.P.(C) 5987/2014 and C.M. No. 14584/2014. Case: Manoj Kumar Vs The Commissioner of Police. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C) 5987/2014 and C.M. No. 14584/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sachin Chauhan, Advocate and For Respondents: Ferida Satarawala, Advocate |
| Judges | S. Ravindra Bhat and Vipin Sanghi, JJ. |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 14; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 419, 420, 468, 470, 479 |
| Judgement Date | September 09, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
-
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) dated 24.09.2013 passed in O.A. No.3044/2012. The grievance made before the CAT was that the petitioner was unfairly denied employment even though he was selected to the post of Constable (Driver) with the Delhi Police.
-
The undisputed facts are that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process, pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates in respect of the post of Constable (Driver), to which he applied on 17.03.2009. He was placed in the select list published subsequently. Concededly the petitioner also cleared the driving/ trade test, conducted by the respondent Department of the Commissioner of Police. The recruitment process resulted in the drawing up of a select list of 220 candidates. However, before issuance of appointment letter, the respondents sought verification of the information furnished by the applicants, including the petitioner. At the stage of verification, the respondents formed an opinion that the driving license for Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV), relied upon by the petitioner, was dubious. This was based upon preliminary information received by the employer. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 21.07.2010, which ultimately culminated in the order dated 28.12.2010, rejecting the representation received and cancelling his candidature. On that account, the petitioner-and apparently the other candidates approached the CAT. The petitioner's application, being O.A. No.345/2011, was disposed of on 18.05.2011 by an order which required the employer to give appropriate opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice to the concerned candidate, and after due inquiry, pass a speaking order based on cogent reasons. Consequently, the petitioner was again served a show-cause notice dated 06.07.2011, to which he responded. This was rejected by an elaborate speaking order dated 29.09.2011. This was the subject matter of the latest challenge before the Tribunal, through an unsuccessful application.
-
The Tribunal by its elaborate order took into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner and all other applicants before it. It considered and set out in extenso the report received by the Chief Secretary, UP, from the appropriate transport department of UP- the agency which is stated to have issued all the licenses. The said report dated 04.09.2010 was prominently relied upon by the public employer (the respondent).
-
Learned counsel urged that the impugned order has not taken into consideration the inherent inconsistencies in the report relied upon by the respondent employer. Highlighting that there were different versions about the veracity of the license issued to the petitioner, and reasons why driving licenses of several candidates were sought to be suspended, it was stated that there was no material on record to suggest that the petitioner had practiced fraud, or had forged the documents relied upon by him. It was submitted that, concededly, the authorities had initiated criminal proceedings, and fairness demanded that the public employer should await the outcome of such proceedings before taking a final decision.
-
Emphasizing that the petitioner had been subjected to a very rigorous test, in which he qualified to the post of Driver, learned counsel submitted that the decision to cancel his candidature was arbitrary. It was submitted that it would be erroneous to adopt the reasoning that absence of a record to show fee deposit, creates a cloud on the genuineness of license fee, as that can hardly be a criterion to determine whether the driving license was indeed issued by the concerned authority. In this context, it is submitted that the concerned authority, which furnished the report, itself was of the opinion that its records were tampered with. Therefore, to distinguish genuine cases from forged ones was an impossible task, and the respondent ought to have taken this into consideration and not passed a blanket order, which in this case has resulted in the prejudicial order. It is also argued that the impugned order cancelling the appointment was a non-speaking order.
-
This Court has considered the materials on record and submissions of the parties. We notice that the Tribunal in this case analyzed- in great detail, the inquiry report which was placed before it. That inquiry report had been taken into consideration by Police Commissioner, while passing the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's candidature. The relevant part of the said order of the CAT reads as follows:
The enquiry report after scrutinizing the records is forwarded as below:-
1. The position of 220 Driving Licenses in reference of above letter dated 04.05.2010 of Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer (Administration) (Signed list of Passenger Tax Officer, Mathura and other officials is enclosed):-03 Driving Licenses Sr. NO-29, 168, 184) issued as per rule. Page numbering of Driving License marked at Sr. NO-184 not done as Commercial Licence by Mathura Office.
The entry of 21 Driving Licenses (Sr. No. 04, 07, 13, 14, 55, 59, 72, 81, 91, 139, 145, 148, 152, 154, 180, 182, 187, 199, 208, 209, 216) found in records but fees were not deposited while issuing of license. So, theses licenses are not valid. It is to point out that issuing date of Licenses at Sr. NO-154 and 209 was Sunday/Holiday.
The license number of 08 driving licenses (Sr. No-09, 78, 95, 133, 138, 164, 177, 212) not related to license number issued on that date, so entries not exists in record.
188 Driving Licenses (remaining list) issued to another person instead of mentioned list.
2. It is found after scrutinizing the records that Driving licenses Number were allotted on the year wise basis by Mathura Office i.e. 01 Sr. No. driving license allotted on first day of year and register was not closed on last day of the year and on next day Sr. No.01 has been allotted i.e. first day of the year. It may be possible that there should not be bad intention behind it but personnel have gain illegal profit from this which is clear from above bullet point -03 from driving licenses marked at 09, 78, 95, 133, 138, 164, 177, 212.
3. Register of less pages were generally used, some registers have only 45 pages for example Register No-107 and 110 of year 2006. Similarly, register No-38 of year 2006 have found only 11 pages. Actually register have more pages but pages were tear and bind.
4. Many register were prepared in a year. As 90 Nos...
To continue reading
Request your trial