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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more