In W.P.(C) 5718/2023-DEL HC- Merely being named in FIR cannot be treated as impediment for public appointment unless involvement is substantiated on investigation, especially in relation to matrimonial offences, rules Delhi HC while directing appointment of candidate to post of Sub-Inspector
Justices V. Kameswar Rao & Anoop Kumar Mendiratta [31-05-2023]

Read Order:  VIKRAM RUHAL Vs. DELHI POLICE & ORS

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, June1, 2023:  While considering a matter where the candidate applying for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police had disclosed information regarding the FIR relating  to allegations of dowry demand made against his brother whereby the petitioner-candidate and his family members were roped in as accused, the Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Police to consider the candidate’s appointment by observing that merely naming in the FIR does not lead to an inference that the employer can keep in abeyance the employment of an applicant for an indefinite period.

“Merely being named in the FIR cannot be treated as an impediment for public appointment, unless the involvement is substantiated on investigation, specially in relation to matrimonial offences”, the Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao & Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta asserted.

The petitioner had applied for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police in response to the recruitment notice issued by the Staff Selection Commission and successfully cleared all the examinations. In the interregnum, before the announcement of final result, an FIR under Sections 313/323/406/498A/506/34 IPC was registered by the petitioner’s sister-in-law, implicating all the family members including the petitioner.

Thereafter, petitioner was recommended for appointment as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, subject to verification. During verification carried out by Delhi Police, petitioner disclosed about the pendency of aforesaid FIR.

Thereupon a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the candidature of the petitioner for the post of SI (EXE) Male in Delhi Police-2017 should not be cancelled due to alleged involvement in the aforementioned FIR as disclosed by him at the time of verification In the meantime, a charge-sheet was issued and cognizance was taken by the Court of JMIC, but the petitioner was not summoned.

The petitioner was informed that his reply to the show-cause notice was examined by the Screening Committee and it was decided to keep his case pending till final decision of the criminal case. Petitioner had filed representations before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi thereby requesting to consider his candidature to the post of Sub Inspector, reiterating that no criminal case was pending against him as his name was reflected in Column 12 of the charge-sheet.Since no response was received from respondents, petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal.

The petitioner challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal declined to set aside order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment NPL, Delhi thereby keeping the recruitment of the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector (Exe) in Delhi Police pending, till final outcome of the proceedings arising out of the FIR.

The Bench reiterated that even if a disclosure has been truthfully made by the applicant, the employer has the right to consider antecedents and fitness and cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate.

Referring to the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, the Bench held that the Competent Authority in the present case, was required to consider the suitability of the petitioner having regard to result of investigation and cognizance taken thereupon on the charge-sheet. The Competent Authority was accordingly under obligation to examine the nature of offence, the evidence appearing against the petitioner and the attendant circumstances.

While noting the petitioner had truly disclosed on verification regarding the FIR registered before announcement of result and there had been no concealment or suppression in this regard by the petitioner, the Court made it clear that the FIR arose out of a matrimonial dispute between the brother of the petitioner and his wife, wherein the petitioner and all other family members had been named as an accused.

Petitioner being the brother-in-law of complainant was only a "collateral accused" and not the main accused. It was also be noticed that the investigating agency had removed Section 313 of the IPC on investigation and the surviving offences related only to Sections 498-A/406/506/323/34 IPC which were generic in nature who was just aged about 19/20 years at the time of the alleged incident.

As per the charge-sheet, petitioner was placed in column No. 12 and it was categorically observed that from the statement of the witnesses and record that the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment from the petitioner were found false and he was found innocent.

“Mere possibility of being summoned after filing of chargesheet, when the petitioner has been placed in Column 12 of charge-sheet, has no legal foundation for withholding the appointment, specially in matrimonial offences under Sections 498-A/406 IPC”, the Bench held.

The petitioner appeared to have already suffered ignominy due to registration of FIR and also the appointment stood deferred despite the investigation pointing to his innocence. Considering that the petitioner had been placed in Column No. 12 of charge-sheet and the fact that evidence did not establish his involvement in aforesaid offences after investigation, the Bench opined that he should have been logically considered suitable for appointment.

Noting the fact that the Competent Authority as well as the Tribunal ignored the fact that there is a growing tendency amongst the women to rope in all the relatives including minors in case an FIR is lodged with reference to matrimonial disputes, the Bench held, “Merely naming in the FIR does not lead to an inference that the employer can keep in abeyance the employment of an applicant for an indefinite period, even if the applicant has been placed in column No. 12 of the charge-sheet and has not been summoned.”

Thus, dismissing the petition, the Bench held, “It is difficult to presume that the petitioner would be a threat to the discipline of Police Force merely on account of registration of the aforesaid FIR wherein he has even not been summoned.”