RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.1. W.P.(C) No.1694/2011 impugns the order dated 25.11.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), Principal Bench allowing the OA No.164/2010 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 preferred by the respondent and directing the petitioner Delhi Police to appoint the respondent to the post of Head Constable along with others of the batch for which he had competed, without however giving him the benefit of back wages but entitling him to seniority from the date the person immediately below him in the merit list of Constables for the selection of the year 2006 was appointed.Since the issue involved in all the three petitions is the same, we heard the same together and are disposing of all the three petitions by this common judgment.The respondent in W.P.(C) No.1694/2011 had in pursuance to the recruitment in the year 2006 to the post of Constable in Delhi Police applied in the OBC category and cleared the Physical Endurance and Measurement WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 3 of 13 Test, Written Test, Interview and Medical Test and was declared provisionally selected subject to the verification of his character and antecedents.The said verification revealed, that he was involved in FIR No.131/99 under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and FIR No.145/2004 under Sections 147, 323 and 451 of the IPC; that he was vide judgment dated 17.03.2001 acquitted in the criminal case in FIR No.131/1999 by giving him benefit of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; that in criminal case in FIR No.145/2004 also, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 01.12.2006 pursuant to a compromise and giving him benefit under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and clarifying that the same would not have any adverse effect on the respondent.The respondent though had not disclosed the aforesaid criminal cases in the application form but in the attestation form meant for verification of character had made disclosure thereof.The petitioner Delhi Police however after giving a notice to show cause and considering his reply thereto, cancelled the candidature of the respondent.The representation of the respondent also did not find favour.The respondent thereafter filed O.A. No.2083/2008 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 21.04.2009 directing Delhi Police to reconsider the eligibility of the respondent.Ajit Singh S/o Sh.Ramjilal R/o Jogawar PS Mundawar, Distt.Alwar (Raj.) reported that on the morning of 26.07.2004 at about 5-6 A.M. he along with his father Sh.Ramjilal, mother Smt. Servo, wife Manju, Lekhram and Lekhram's wife Munesh were in their house.While his mother Servo was churning buttermilk, Sube Singh, Kanwar Singh, Sanwal S/o Kunjaram, Dharamveer S/o Sube Singh and their wives attacked them with cane sticks and halberds (Pharsa) and inured all of them.Kanwar Singh and Sube Singh were equipped with halberd while rest were equipped with cane sticks.Sube Singh attacked him with halberd on his back.They vandalized the household articles and robbed `40,000/- cash, gold chain of his wife Manju, gold earring of Munesh.Notice of the writ petition was issued and vide interim order dated 06.04.2011, the operation of the order of the Tribunal stayed.2. W.P.(C) No.6253/2011 impugns the orders dated 19.03.2010, 27.07.2010 and 16.05.2011 of the Tribunal dismissing the OA No.2372/2009 preferred by the respondent therein impugning the cancellation of his candidature for the post of Constable in the Delhi Police WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 2 of 13 and dismissing the review applications filed by the petitioner.Rule was issued of the said petition also.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 2 of 13Delhi WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 4 of 13 Police however vide order dated 17.06.2009 found the respondent unsuitable for a disciplined force like Delhi Police where safeguarding the human right is the utmost priority, giving the following reasons:WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 3 of 13WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 4 of 13On hearing the noise, the neighbours gathered and intervened.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 5 of 13In Second case FIR No.131/99, PS Mundawar Sh.Ramji Lal S/o Sh.Laxman R/o Jogawar, PS Mundawar, Distt.Alwar (Raj.) reported that he had a hut (chhappar) in the village in which he had stored "Tura" & "Wheat".On 03.05.99 at about 4:00 PM Sube Singh, Lal Singh, Kanwar Singh S/o Kunja Ram, Rakesh S/o Sube Singh, Dharamveer S/o Sube Singh, Sudesh D/o Lal Singh, Dhamali D/o Sube Singh, Chiriya W/o Sube Singh and Gidoari W/o Kunja Ram came there and broke his hut with the help of wood sticks and halberd.They also stole the wheat, tura and other materials forcibly.When he, his family and other villagers objected to it, they threatened them for dire consequences.Accordingly the case was registered U/s 454/380 IPC.During course of trial the court charged them U/s 147/323 IPC and the accused persons pleaded their guilt.Charges U/s 147/323 IPC were proved against them and the Court fined `100/- each on the five accused persons.Keeping in view the above circumstances, it has been established that you were involved in two criminal cases and played an active role in these cases.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 6 of 13From the facts as explained above, it shows that you are of the habit of picking up quarrel and resorting to violence.This type of attitude renders you unsuitable for a disciplined force like Delhi Police where safeguarding the human right is the utmost priority.As such, you have again been found not suitable for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police and your application is considered and rejected."The said order was impugned in O.A. No.164/2010 (supra).The Tribunal however in view of the acquittal in the criminal cases with clarification that the probation would not adversely affect the respondent held such rejection to be bad and directed Delhi Police to appoint the respondent therein.The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6253/2011 had also applied for the post of Constable in Delhi Police in the recruitment of the year 2008; he also cleared all the tests and was provisionally selected but on verification was found to have been involved in case FIR No.134/2003 under Section 3/6 of WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 7 of 13 the Public Examination Act and was convicted with a fine of `1,000/- and given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. On such revelation, his candidature was also cancelled.The Tribunal dismissed his challenge holding that he has to suffer for the consequences of his conviction and the conclusion reached by the Delhi Police of his being unfit for service could not be questioned.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 7 of 13The respondent in W.P.(C) No.7811/2011 had also applied during the recruitment of the year 2009 for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police and was provisionally selected; however verification of his antecedents revealed that he was involved in criminal case FIR No.115/2007 dated 16.07.2007 under Sections 341/294/506/34 IPC in which he was convicted but released after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act for the reason of his being a student and under 21 years of age.His candidature was also cancelled after hearing him.The Tribunal set aside the said order relying inter alia on Commissioner of Police Vs.Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 and accordingly directed his appointment.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 8 of 13WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 8 of 13We have recently had occasion to deal with the questions as raised in these petitions in our judgment dated 16.11.2011 in W.P.(C) No.8752/2011 titled Vinod Kumar Vs.Commissioner of Police and judgment dated 20.12.2011 in W.P.(C) No.6518/2011 titled Commissioner of Police Vs.Ranvir Singh.Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.6253/2011 is dismissed and the petitioner therein not found entitled to employment.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 11 of 13Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.7811/2011 is dismissed and the order dated 27.07.2011 of the Tribunal directing the Delhi Police to appoint the WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 12 of 13 respondent therein is upheld and the petitioner Delhi Police is directed to now comply with the said order within six weeks.WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 12 of 13No order as to costs.RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 15, 2012 'gsr' WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 13 of 13WP(C) Nos.1694/2011, 6253/2011 & 7811/2011 Page 13 of 13

Relevant sections: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code