Merely Being Named In FIR On Matrimonial Offences Can’t Be Treated As Impediment For Public Appointment: Delhi High Court
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, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to appoint a candidate to the Sub Inspector post, whose employment was kept pending till the disposal of the FIR pending against him.The court also noted that he was placed in...
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, the Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to appoint a candidate to the Sub Inspector post, whose employment was kept pending till the disposal of the FIR pending against him.
The court also noted that he was placed in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet and the evidence did not establish his involvement in matrimonial offences,
“He should have been logically considered suitable for appointment. 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,” said the court.
The bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said the Competent Authority as well as the Central Administrative Tribunal appear to have 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 court further said that many of such complaints are eventually either settled between the families and are later on stated to have been filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues.
"The abuse of the aforesaid provision has been substantially noticed though the salutary purpose of the enactment cannot be ignored in any manner. 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," said the court.
The court was hearing the writ petition challenging the decision of tribunal, whereby it declined to set aside the order issued in 2020 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment NPL, Delhi. The order kept the recruitment of the petitioner Vikram Ruhal to the post of SI (Exe) in Delhi Police pending, until the final outcome of the proceedings arising out of the FIR against him.
The FIR was lodged in 2018 under Sections 313, 323, 406, 498A, 506, 34 of IPC by the sister-in-law of the petitioner against the entire family. The counsel for the petitioner contended that he was merely named as a collateral accused in the FIR arising from matrimonial disputes.
The court said the Competent Authority was under obligation to examine the nature of offence, the evidence appearing against the petitioner and the attendant circumstances. All matters in this regard cannot be placed in a straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and discretion does vest with the authorities, who are expected to exercise the same with care and caution, it added.
The court noted that Ruhal being the brother-in-law of the complainant is only a “collateral accused” and not the main accused in the case.
“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, case is only made out against the accused Parveen (brother of petitioner),” the court noted further.
The court said the criminal trials are generally long and protracted and appointment in such a case should not have been ordinarily deferred for an indefinite period till the conclusion of trial, despite the findings in the investigation being in favour of the petitioner.
“The Competent Authority as well as the Tribunal, failed to consider the facts and circumstances in a correct perspective and were merely swept by the factum of the petitioner being named in the FIR,” said the court, adding that 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 FIR wherein he has even not been summoned.
Setting aside the order of the Tribunal, the High Court ordered that, “Respondents are hereby directed to appoint the petitioner to the concerned post, subject to his satisfying all other conditions within a period of four weeks from the passing of this order.”
Advocates Aadil Singh Boparai, Srishti Khanna,Sidhant Saraswat and Sachin Kumar for the petitioner.
Advocates Avnish Ahlawat with Tania Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh,Palak Rohmetra,Laavanya Kaushik and Aliza Alam for the respondents.
Case Title: Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 478