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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

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...