Juvenile candidate acquitted on merits in serious offence cannot be denied police appointment mechanically by Screening Committee for 'non-honourable' acquittal; discretion must reasonably consider age, falsity of allegations, and lack of criminal propensity.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

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

“("A) To quash the impugned SCN dt.15.4.2024 and Order dt.8.1 0.2024 and direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of Constable (Ex. ) with all consequential benefits including Seniority/promotion and arrears . of pay particularly when the applicant is not able to get job despite his best efforts.

B) To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The applicant was born on 01.01.2001 as per his Matriculation Certificate issued by CBSE (Annexure A-3). He applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police under Recruitment-2023 and successfully qualified the Physical, Medical, Written as well as Interview/Personality Tests and was provisionally selected.

2.2. Thereafter, he was issued Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2024 on account of his disclosure of involvement in FIR No. 7/2018 dated 08.01.2018 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The applicant submitted all relevant documents including copy of Judgment dated 11.10.2022 (Annexure A-4), whereby he stood acquitted. The relevant portion of the said judgment, reads as under:

“The PW-1 Mujibur Rahman from his evidence, it is clear that he is B.A. Pass. The Evidence given by this prosecution witness before the Hon'ble Court, it seems that this witness who has given statement about the incidence against accused which is complaint is Exhibit A-I is incorrect, false or this witness who has prosecuted the evidence related to the incident in the court is false.

Therefore, the cause if of the View that in the interest of justice, the Petitioner of the case PW-1 Mujibur Rahman be tried summarily (summary trial) for giving false Evidence before the Court from the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view it is just and proper that the petitioner of the case PW-1 Mujibur Rahman against him it is justifiable to initiate, action under Section 344 of Cr. P.C. therefore, the Petitioner of the case to take cognizance against prosecution witness PW-1 Mujibur Rahman under Section 344 of the Cr. P.C.

ORDER

In the case of Session Trial No. 348/2019, C.C. No. 07/2018, Police Station Kotwali, Shamli, district Shamli, the accused Ashwani Malik is acquitted of the alleged charges levelled under Section 323, 308 I.P.C.

The accused Ashwani Malik is on bail in the present case, his personal bond and bail bond is cancelled and surety are discharged from their liability.

The Petitioner of case PW-1 Mujibur Rahman against him under Section 344 of Cr. P.C. under it separate from miscellaneous case be registered and for giving false evidence before the Court or for fabricating it to clear his objective/aim the Petitioner of the case, to issue Notice against Prosecution witness PW-1 Mujibur Rahman under Section 344 Cr. P.C. on the date 12.11.2022 is fixed. The registered miscellaneous case in this case file. One copy of this judgment one copy of complaint Exhibit A-I and the above witness who as witness PW-1 Oral Evidence one-one copy be given.”

2.3. Learned counsel contended that the Trial Court not only acquitted the applicant for want of incriminating evidence and non-identification by witnesses, but also initiated proceedings against the complainant under Section 344 CrPC, thereby establishing falsity of the allegations. It is pertinent that on the date of the alleged incident/FIR i.e. 08.01.2018, the applicant was only 17 years old