Skip to main content

Aspirant can't be barred on mere allegation of an offence: CAT

A mere allegation of involvement in criminal offences cannot deprive a person of opportunity to be recruited in government service, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held while setting aside cancellation of candidature of a Delhi police aspirant who was accused of molesting a woman but later acquitted of the charge.

"In our considered view, there is a difference between involvement in offences involving moral turpitude like outraging the modesty of a women and mere allegation to that effect with the motive to deprive a person of his opportunity to be recruited in government service,"a CAT bench, comprising members George Paracken and Shekhar Agarwal, said.

The tribunal quashed the Delhi Police order cancelling the candidature of Vipin Rathi for the post of Constable by relying on his submission that during trial of the criminal case against him, the parties agreed to settle out of court the offences which were compoundable. With regard to the rest of the alleged offences which were non-compoundable, no evidence was adduced.

"We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order of December 11, 2012 cancelling the candidature of the applicant (Rathi). We remit the case back to respondents (Delhi police) to place his reply to the show cause notice before the screening committee to consider the same in an independent and dispassionate manner," it said.

The screening committee of Delhi police was of the view that though Rathi was acquitted in the criminal case, he did not disclose the facts about his involvement in the criminal case in the application form and thus, he was provisionally selected subject to verification of his antecedents.

As he had been charged with offences involving moral turpitude, the committee had found him unsuitable, but before his candidature was cancelled he was given a show cause notice to explain his position.

However, his reply to the show cause notice was rejected as 'not convincing' by a Deputy Commissioner of Police, instead of putting it up before the committee, and his candidature was cancelled.

Article referred: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=yeh+mulaqat+ek+bahana&oq=yeh+mula&aqs=chrome.1.57j0l3.4051j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even