In The Case Of Vikram Ruhal Vs Delhi Police & Ors.before The Honorable High Court Of Delhi

FACTS OF THE CASE

• The present writ petition is filed against an order dated 20.02.23 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
• In the order, CAT refused to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment NPL, Delhi dated 02.12.20. Tribunal kept the recruitment of petitioner to the post of sub-inspector pending till the outcome arising out of the proceedings of FIR under Section 313/323/406/498A/506/34 I.P.C. is observed.
• Petitioner preferred two separate representations on different dates requesting to consider him for the post of sub-inspector. He reiterated that no criminal case is pending against him as his name was on the column 12 of the charge sheet.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 

• The learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was merely named as collateral accused in the FIR which has arisen out of matrimonial disputes. 
• It was argued that after proper investigation the name of petitioner was put in column 12 and thus practically no criminal proceedings were pending against him.
• It was urged that petitioner cannot be made to suffer in perpetuity till the disposal of the aforementioned criminal proceedings.
• On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent reiterated the decision of the t. It was contended that the petitioner was only provisionally selected for the post which was subjected to verification. The allegations against the petitioners in the aforementioned FIR are found serious and since the case is under trial, it is correct to move further after the dismissal of the criminal proceedings.

JUDGEMENT AND OBSERVATIONS

• The court referred to the decision in the case of Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Ors. (2012) where the question to consider was suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form.
• Court observed that even if a disclosure of conviction, acquittal or arrest is made truthfully by the candidate, the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
• Court observed that the petitioner is placed in the column 12 and the tribunal misdirected itself in assuming that the petitioner could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C during the trial.
• Court held that the tribunal has failed to analyse the facts and circumstances of the present case and has unreasonably declined relief to the petitoner.
• It was observed that the tribunal took decision merely on the basis of the fact that the petitoner was named under column 12 of the charge  sheet. There is nothing else which can act as evidence to disqualify the petitioner.
• The petition was thereby allowed.