Mere FIR implication without chargesheet or trial due to mistaken identity does not justify keeping police recruitment candidature pending; Screening Committee must assess based on investigation findings.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

By way of the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(a) quash and set aside impugned order dated 05.l2.2024 (Annexure A/l) alongwith impugned show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure A/2) and;

(b) direct the respondents to forthwith further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male) and;

(c) accord of all consequential benefits including monetary and seniority benefits

(d) Award costs of the proceedings; and (e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2023 for recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male) in Delhi Police, the applicant, belonging to the EWS category, duly participated in the selection process, secured merit under Roll No. 3002002291 and stands as a selectee; however, his candidature has been kept pending vide impugned order dated 05.12.2024, issued on the basis of a show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 arising out of FIR No. 227/2022 dated 17.06.2022 registered at P.S. Tappal, Aligarh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 341, 427, 336, 436, 333, 120-B IPC, Sections 2 & 7 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.

2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the said FIR pertains to an alleged public demonstration in connection with the ‘Agniveer’ issue, wherein hundreds of persons were implicated, and the applicant’s name was wrongly mentioned therein. However, upon thorough investigation and scrutiny of the statements of witnesses, the complainant, CDR and other material collected during the investigation, it was categorically found that the applicant had been falsely implicated and was not involved in the alleged incident it was a case of mistaken identity. Consequently, while the police filed a chargesheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction against only 70 accused persons, the applicant was neither chargesheeted nor placed in Column No. 16 as an accused sent for trial.

2.2. Learned counsel contended that the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 03.08.2024, has taken cognizance of the offences and summoned only the chargesheeted accused, and charges have since been framed against those accused persons, whereas no charges have been framed against the applicant, clearly establishing that he was not sent up for trial and that the chargesheet, as filed, stands accepted without any allegation surviving against him. Thus, there is admittedly no criminal case pending against the applicant and he is not facing trial;yet, the respondents have arbitrarily and mechanically kept his candidature pending till the outcome of the trial of other accused persons, which action is unreasonable and contrary to settled law, particularly when no Screening Committee proceedings were warranted in the peculiar facts of the present case.

2.3. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the relevant portion of the learned Trial Court judgment dated 03.08.2024, which reads as under:

“Today the charge sheet in Case Appeal Number 227/2022 was presented in the court by the investigating officer after investigation, all the documents were examined. After examination the accused (1) Lala (2) Bhago (3) Brijpal (4) Lokesh (5) Vikash (6) Guruji Kripal (7) Vineet (8) Tinku (9) Pawan (10) Ram Kumar (11) Keshav Chaudhari (12) Amit (13) Mohan Chaudhari (14) Sudhir Sharma (15) Pushpendra (16) Gaurav (17) Sachin S/o Late Lala (18) Keshav Chaudhari S/o Lohru (19) Mohit (20) Gurmeet Sin