Disposed

Vikas Nagar v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/13913/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A CISF candidate was declared unsuitable for employment because of pending criminal proceedings from a matrimonial dispute, despite a stay on those proceedings by another High Court. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection letter and allowed him to join as Constable DCPO subject to the criminal case outcome, with termination permitted upon conviction without inquiry.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vikas Nagar Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~65

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 14.11.2024

¶4

W.P.(C) 13913/2024 & CM APPL. 58248/2024 VIKAS NAGAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sahil Mongia, Mr. Yash Yadav & Ms. Sanjana Samor, Advs. with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC with Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Adv. AC Raj Kumar, CISF.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Pursuant to our Order dated 04.11.2024, the learned counsel for the respondents has produced before us the Board proceedings of the 19^th Standing Screening Committee Meeting (29^th sitting) held on 26.07.2024 at APS-I Hqrs, New Delhi - Case No.19, whereby the petitioner was declared “ unsuitable ” for employment in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short, “CISF”). The Standard Screening Committee has taken note of the Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Application No.2115/2024, titled

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13913/2024 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:2 0.11.2024 15:16:56

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

Vikas Kumar & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr., by which the further proceedings in the criminal case that is pending against the petitioner had been stayed. However, the Screening Committee has opined that as the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature and chargesheet against the petitioner already stands filed, he is “ unsuitable ” for employment in CISF.

¶15

While we are cognizant of the position in law that normally the courts would be circumspect in interfering with the opinion of the employer/screening committee in matters of judging the suitability of a candidate for appointment, we are unable to agree with the findings and the opinion of the Screening Committee in the present case. 3. In the present case, as has been noted in our Order dated 03.10.2024, the criminal case has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife. The proceedings in the said criminal case have been stayed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide its Order dated 23.02.2024 referred hereinabove. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer a punishment when the criminal case is yet to be adjudicated. We do not need to emphasise that in the matters of public employment, the opportunity does not come repeatedly and may never come for the petitioner again. The petitioner has been successful in obtaining the employment with the CISF based on his own merit and qualification. In case, the petitioner is not allowed to join, subject to the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner may lose this opportunity for all times to come and this loss would never be compensated. On the other hand, in case he is eventually found guilty, the balance can be struck by making his

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13913/2024 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:2 0.11.2024 15:16:56

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

appointment subject to the outcome of the criminal case and, in that event, directing that he would be terminated from service without any notice or following the rigours of an inquiry.

¶20

We, therefore, dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned letter dated 03.09.2024, issued by respondent no.2. The petitioner shall be allowed to join the post of Constable DCPO in the CISF subject to the outcome of the criminal case, that is, Case No.6431/2023 arising out of the FIR No.322/2023 dated 30.08.2023, registered at Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) under Sections 376/377/354/364/511/323/504/506/452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and pending before the Competent Court at Sambhal. In case the petitioner is eventually convicted in that case, the respondents shall be free to terminate the services of the petitioner, without the petitioner having any equity in his favour due to this Order or his service rendered in the interim. We further clarify that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any service benefits for the service that is rendered by him, in case of his conviction, except for the pay that he has earned for that period. 5. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶22

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶23

NOVEMBER 14, 2024 /ab/sk/as

¶24

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 13913/2024 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:2 0.11.2024 15:16:56

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Vikas Nagar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vikas Nagar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Educational and Welfare Trust Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs Office of the District and Session Judge Hq & Anr.

District Kabaddi Association Rohtak & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rizwan Ahmed & Ors. Vs Airtel Tower Department & Ors.

Monu Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gaurav Dhama Vs Director General Central Industrial Security Force & Ors.

Sh Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Muzaffar Ahmad and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shashank Shekhar Mishra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Achkan Arvind Priyadarshi Meena Vs Union of India & Ors.

District Collector Vs Baldev Singh & Ors.

Banwarilal Jat and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bhumika Pathania Vs Union of India and Ors.