In the matter of Vikram Ruhal vs Delhi Police In response to the Staff Selection Commission’s recruitment notice dated April 22, 2017, the petitioner applied for the position of sub-inspector. He passed each test he took between May 2017 and September 2018 with flying colours. The petitioner passed all of the required exams for the position, but the Delhi Police Commissioner chose to postpone his appointment since he was mentioned in the FIR that his sister-in-law had filed against his brother and the entire family. Although the police had listed his name in column 12 of the charge sheet, there was no proof that he had committed any of the claimed acts.
Analysis of Delhi high court order
A divisional bench of the Delhi High Court, composed of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, noted that there is a growing trend among women to name all of her husband’s family members, even children, as defendants in matrimonial cases for the offence of cruelty to wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A man whose appointment as a sub-inspector with the Delhi Police was postponed because he was mentioned in an FIR for an offence under Section 498A was given relief by the court. The court observed that many of these complaints are ultimately resolved between spouses or families and are afterwards claimed to have been made in a hurry over unimportant matters. Even though the law’s beneficial intent cannot be disregarded in any way, the abuse of that provision has been considerably noted.
The bench noticed the applicant should have been logically regarded as suitable for appointment given that he was included in Column 12 of the charge sheet and that evidence did not prove his involvement in the crimes after the investigation. Being listed in the FIR alone cannot be regarded as a barrier to public employment unless the involvement is proven through further inquiry, particularly in cases involving marriage violations.
The judgement further observed that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) denied the petitioner any remedy in the absence of any evidence to support his involvement in the crime. Even if a candidate has been listed in column 12 of the charge sheet but hasn’t been summoned, the mere mention of the candidate in the FIR does not imply that the employer has the right to put the candidate’s employment on hold indefinitely.