COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. RAJ KUMAR

Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, P V Yogeshwaran, Kamlendra Mishra, G Sanjay Kumar Visen, B. V. Balaram Das Advs. for the Appellant. Anil Singal, Prashant Bhardwaj, Rishi Bharadwaj, Abhiesumat Gupta, Vikram Singh Jakhar, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Sudhir Naagar, Sidharth Khatana, Manohar Naagar, Yoginder Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. H 8 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. Leave granted. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (“the appellant”) is in appeal, aggrieved by a common judgment of the Delhi High Court by which the respondents (hereafter referred to as “candidates/applicants”) were directed to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable of Delhi Police.

2. An advertisement was issued in the year 2009, inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up vacancies in the cadre of constable in the Delhi Police. It is not in dispute that the respondent candidates, in their applications, disclosed that criminal cases had been instituted against them – as well as the outcome of those cases. Except in SLP(C) 18396/2014 where the applicant Deepa Tomar was facing trial, the criminal cases had ended in compromise. After due consideration of their candidature, and in terms of S.O. No.398/2010, the appellant referred their cases to a Standing Committee, to assess their suitability. In Deepa Tomar’s case, the consideration was deferred since she was facing trial in criminal proceedings where she was charged with committing the offence of kidnapping under Section 364 IPC. By various orders, which were impugned in separate proceedings by the candidates, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the applications of the candidates, upholding their pleas, and quashing the orders of the Screening Committees. All the orders of the CAT were impugned by the appellant before the High Court. They were dealt with and considered by the common impugned order, which rejected the appellant’s petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The main argument by the candidates was that having regard to the terms of the applicable Standing Order as well as the decisions of this Court, the rejection of their candidature was unsustainable because of non-application of mind and further the orders were made in a mechanical manner. By the impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ petitions and quashed the rejection of the candidatures of the respondents.

4. It is urged by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Ms. Madhavi Divan, appearing on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment is erroneous inasmuch as the Division Bench lost sight of the fact that the Standing Orders could not be so read as COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. RAJ KUMAR [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.] compelling the authorities to select applicants whose conduct was not satisfactory in the opinion of the Screening Committee. The appellant relies upon the rulings of this Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr v Mehar Singh1 as well as the observations of the three- Judge Bench in the Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh v. UOI &Ors2.

5. The appellant urges that in all the four cases, the candidates faced criminal proceedings – in most of them, even charges were framed after which the cases against them ended in a compromise. In the case of Ms. Deepa Tomar, the candidate was not only accused but also charged for committing the offence of kidnapping. She stood trial but was acquitted on the ground of insufficient evidence. It was submitted that having regard to the nature of the offences that the candidates were alleged to have committed and the outcome of the cases, the authorities were justified in concluding that they were unsuitable for employment in the concerned post, i.e. as Constables of Police.

6. It was argued by Mr. Singhal appearing on behalf of two candidates, Shiv Singh [SLP(C) 13282/2014] and Prem Singh Choudhary [SLP(C) 18396/2014] that the Screening Committee dealt with their cases in a perfunctory manner and did not appreciate the entirety of facts. With respect to the respondent Shiv Singh, it was urged that though in the first information report (FIR), allegations could have led to grave offences, including charge under Section 353 IPC, as a matter of fact the charges framed were not in relation to these offences. Ultimately, the alleged victims had no difficulty in entering into compromise with the candidate, which led to compounding of the offences that he was said to have committed. It was submitted that in the case of Prem Singh Choudhary/Respondent too, it could not be said that the criminal charges (i.e., of committing offences under Sections 143/343/341 IPC) were either grave or involved moral turpitude. In this case too, the accused/candidate was not convicted; and a compromise was entered into with the informant.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/candidates relied upon the observations of the High Court that in cases involving allegations of commission of offences under Section 323 IPC, especially where the