COMMR. OF POLICE AND ORS versus SANDEEP KUMAR

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 17-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 964 
COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS 
v. 
SANDEEP KUMAR 
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1430 OF 2007) 
MARCH 17, 2011 
[MAR~NDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Service law: Appointment - Respondent applied for the 
post of Head Constable - Application form contained a 
C question if he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under 
detention, fined or convicted by court of law for any offence -
Respondent answered the question in negative - He qualified 
in all the tests - While filling the attestation form, he disclosed 
for the first time that he had been involved in a criminal case 
o with his tenant which later on was compromised and he was 
acquitted - His candidature was cancelled on the ground that 
he made a false statement since he was involved in a 
criminal case - Aggrieved, the respondent filed petition before 
CAT - CAT dismissed the petition - High Court holding that 
E .cancellation of candidature of respondent was illegal -
Justification of - Held: Justified - Respondent was 20 years 
of age when the incident had happen.ed - At that age, young 
people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can 
often been condoned - They are not expected to behave in 
F a mature manner as older people - The modern approach 
sl10u/d be to reform a person instead of branding him as a 
c1iminal all his life - In the application form, the respondent 
may not have mentioned that he was involved in a criminal 
case out of fear of automatic disqualification - Even otherwise, 
it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, 
G and, therefore, in such matters, a more lenient view should 
be taken. 
H 
Morris v. Crown Office (1970) 2 Q.B. 114 - referred to. 
964 
COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS v. SANDEEP KUMAR 965 
Case Law Reference: 
(1970) 2 Q.B. 114 
referred to 
Para 14 · 
CIVIL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1430 of 2007. 
· 
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.7.2006 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 12565 of 2004. 
T.S. Doabia, Rekha Pandey, Mukesh Verma and D.S. 
Mahra for the Appellants. 
Deepak Kumar and Sudarsh Menon for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment 
of the High Court of Delhi dated 31.07.2006. · 
A 
8 
c 
D 
The facts have been given in the impugned judgment and 
E 
hence we are not repeating the same here, except wherever 
necessary. 
The respondent herein-Sandeep Kumar applied for the 
post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999. In the application 
F 
form it was printed : 
"12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted kept 
under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court 
of law for any offence debarred/disqualified by any Public G 
Service Commission from appearing atits examination/ 
selection or debarred from any Examination, rusticated by 
any university or any other education authority/Institution." 
Against that column the respondent wrote : 'No'. 
H 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
It is alleged that this is a false statement made by the 
respondent because he and some of his family members were 
involved in a criminal case being FIR 362 under Section 325/ 
34 IPC. This case was admittedly compromised on 
18.01.1998 and the respondent and his family members were 
B acquitted on 18.01.1998. 
In response to the advertisement issued in January 1999 
for filing up of certain posts of Head Constables (Ministerial), 
the respondent applied on 24.02.1999 but did not mention in 
his application form that he was involved in the aforesaid 
C criminal case. 
The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection to the 
post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial). On 
03.04.2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the first time 
D he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with 
his tenant which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and 
he had been acquitted. 
On 02.08.2001 a show cause notice was issued to him 
E asking the respondent to show cause why his candidature for 
the post should not be cancelled because he had concealed 
the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and 
had made a wrong statement in his application form. The 
respondent submitted his reply on 17.08.2001 and an additional 
reply but the authorities were not satisfied with the same and 
F on 29.05.2003 cancelled .his candidature. 
The respondent filed a petition before the Ce
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.