Entitled To Protection From Disqualification U/S.12 Probation Of Offenders Act: Delhi High Court Asks AAI To Appoint Candidate Who Was Booked U/S. 498A IPC
The Petitioner had approached the Delhi High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging a letter by which the respondent - Airport Authority of India [AAI], had rejected his representation.
Justice Prateek Jalan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has directed the Airport Authority of India to appoint a candidate to the post of Junior Executive after noting that he was entitled to the protection from disqualification enshrined in Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The High Court noted that although the petitioner was convicted of offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, he was released on probation by the Appellate Court after the proceedings between him and his wife had been settled.
The Petitioner had approached the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging a letter by which the respondent - Airport Authority of India [AAI], had rejected his representation against the cancellation of his candidature for the post of Junior Executive (Common Cadre) in AAI. Consequently, he sought a revival of his appointment to the said post.
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held, “In summary, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the protection from disqualification enshrined in Section 12 of the Act, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shaitan Singh Meena. Although the petitioner was convicted of offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, he was released on probation by the Appellate Court after the proceedings between him and the complainant [his wife] had been settled.”
Advocate N.L Bareja represented the Petitioner while Advocate Anjana Gosain represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Executive (Common Cadre) in 2023, and after clearing the test as well as the verification process, he was offered an appointment. He joined the required training on April 19, 2024. However, his appointment was cancelled by an order dated August 19, 2024, on the grounds that he had been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, rendering him ineligible for appointment in terms of Regulation 6(7)(b) of the Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003. A Writ Petition came to be filed by the Petitioner, but AAI upheld the earlier cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment.The action taken by AAI was predicated upon criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner at the instance of his estranged wife.
An FIR was registered against him under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC]. The criminal proceedings resulted in a judgment of the Trial Court whereby he was convicted of the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, but the offence under Section 506 IPC was held not to be established. The petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment, but the Trial Court suspended the sentence on furnishing of a bail bond. The Appellate Court noticed that the petitioner and the complainant had settled the matter and had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The Appellate Court had thus granted the petitioner the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, noted that the present case did not concern any allegation of misrepresentation or suppression against the petitioner. It was the accepted position that the petitioner declared his conviction, at the time he was required to do so, in the attestation form called for by AAI.
The Bench found that the facts of the present case were closer to Shaitan Singh Meena v. Union of India (2019). As in Shaitan Singh Meena (Supra), the dispute in the present case was also between the members of the family and was settled between the complainant and the petitioner. In Shaitan Singh Meena (Supra), the Court had refused to accept the submission of the Respondents that the conviction of the Petitioner would come in the way of his being appointed to the post of Limb Maker Carpenter in the ALC, notwithstanding Section 12 POA.
The Bench noted that the marriage of the petitioner and the complainant had also been dissolved by mutual consent. The post for which the petitioner was offered appointment was not such as to require such a lasting effect of his conviction, so as to disentitle the benefit of the statutory provisions.
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench set aside the impugned order of the AAI. Noting that by an interim order, AAI’s submission was recorded that one post in the relevant category was kept vacant for the appointment of the petitioner, the Bench directed the AAI to appoint the petitioner against the said vacant post.
Cause Title: Rajesh v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9527)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates N.L Bareja, Saqib
Respondent: Advocates Anjana Gosain, Shreya Manjari, Law Officer Jayesh Bhargava