Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mukesh vs Home Affairs on 8 August, 2025
1
Item No.13/C-4
O.A. No. 71/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 71/2025
Reserved on 30.07.2025
Pronounced on 08.08.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Mukesh
aged about 33 years
S/o Sh. Suresh Singh
R/o Vill- Jantwali, Post- Churiajitgarh
Teh- Nawalgarh, Thana- Mukundgarh
Dist. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333701
Roll No. 4605000075
Phone no. 9116824324
............Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Esha Mazumdar)
Versus
1. Union of India Through Secretary (Home) Ministry of Home Affairs North
Block New Delhi-110001
2. Delhi Police Through Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarters
Behind Parliament Street Police Station New Delhi-110001
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment, Delhi Police Lines Kingsway
Camp
New Delhi-110009
4. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman Northern Region Block
No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. U Srivastava)
2
Item No.13/C-4
O.A. No. 71/2025
ORDER (ORAL)
Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant is a citizen of India and entitled to all the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. Respondent No. 4, Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as "SSC"), published a recruitment notification dated 08.07.2022 for the post of Constable (Driver) Male in Delhi Police Examination, 2022. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the applicant, being duly eligible under the OBC category, applied for the said post on 29.07.2022.
2. The applicant appeared in the computer-based examination conducted on 21.10.2022 and secured 79.07278 marks out of 100. The Applicant was declared qualified for the next stages, i.e., Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST), and Trade Test and stated that the applicant successfully qualified the PET/PST held on 27.04.2023 and the Trade Test conducted on 07.11.2023, and was declared fit in the medical examination held on 19.12.2023 and the final merit list was published on 09.12.2023, in which the applicant's name was included among the selected candidates.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the applicant submitted the attestation form as per procedure and disclosed that he had 3 Item No.13/C-4 O.A. No. 71/2025 been falsely implicated in FIR No. 44/2022 dated 16.07.2020 registered at PS Mahila Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan, under Sections 498A/406/312 IPC. The IO filed chargesheet under Sections 498A/406 IPC only, concluding that Section 312 IPC was not made out. The applicant was acquitted under Section 498A IPC by judgment dated 10.10.2023, and offence under Section 406 IPC was compounded by mutual settlement. Divorce was granted by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide judgment dated 18.10.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the FIR arose out of a matrimonial dispute and the impugned cancellation order was issued without proper application of mind, especially since Section 312 IPC was not invoked in the chargesheet and the offence under Section 406 IPC being compoundable was duly compounded, and the Applicant was acquitted of all charges.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that despite being fully eligible, fit, and meritorious, the applicant was not issued the appointment letter, unlike other selected candidates. Applicant was served with a show-cause notice dated 04.04.2024 by Respondent No. 3 vide Office No. XII/129/2024/32906/Rectt.Cell(R-VI) Ct. (Dvr.)/NPL, and a reply was submitted within time. On 06.12.2024, the Respondents arbitrarily cancelled the Applicant's candidature solely on the ground of the previously disclosed criminal case, despite his acquittal and amicable 4 Item No.13/C-4 O.A. No. 71/2025 settlement of disputes. The cancellation order wrongly records that the applicant committed an offence under Section 312 IPC, which was never made out in the chargesheet filed by the IO.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant had previously served with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) since 07.11.2016 and had an unblemished record. He resigned from CISF after over 7 years of service upon being shortlisted for the present post. It is stated that the cancellation of candidature has caused severe professional and financial hardship, depriving the applicant of both his former post and the new appointment opportunity. The impugned cancellation amounts to a form of vicarious punishment, which is impermissible in law.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the respondents have arbitrarily invoked the ground of "moral turpitude" without properly considering the acquittal and full disclosure made by the Applicant, which goes against the principles of justice and fair opportunity. It is stated that the action of the Respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Standing Order No. 12/2022. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the applicant has no other efficacious remedy but to approach this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.
5Item No.13/C-4 O.A. No. 71/2025
8. On issuance of notice, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter reply and stated that the plea of the applicant, alleging that his candidature was cancelled arbitrarily and mechanically without due application of mind, is wrong, false, and baseless, being devoid of merit and substance.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that the Screening Committee duly considered the case of the applicant and observed that the candidate, being the husband of the complainant, was the main accused in the criminal case. The complainant, i.e., the wife of the applicant, had alleged that her husband and in-laws used to taunt and harass her for not bringing a car and a plot as dowry. It was further alleged that she was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty by the applicant and his parents in connection with dowry demands.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents also stated that although the applicant was acquitted due to a compromise between the parties, he was nevertheless tried under stringent legal provisions before the Hon'ble Court for cruelty and causing miscarriage. The acquittal of the candidate cannot be treated as an "honourable acquittal" in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Methu Meda.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the involvement of the candidate in such a serious criminal case demonstrates a 6 Item No.13/C-4 O.A. No. 71/2025 premeditated tendency to commit offences without fear of law. Such conduct reflects an attitude that renders the candidate unsuitable for appointment in a law-enforcing agency and a disciplined force like the Delhi Police. It is further submitted that the reply submitted by the applicant to the Show Cause Notice was duly considered but found to be unconvincing and inadequate to rebut the adverse material on record.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that in view of the aforementioned facts, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, and the relevant provisions of Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, the Screening Committee rightly found the candidate unsuitable for appointment in Delhi Police and accordingly marked his case as "Not Recommended".
13. Learned counsel for the respondents concluded by stating that the case of the applicant was duly considered on merits with due application of mind in a reasoned and speaking manner. The actions taken by the respondents are legal, valid, and fully justified, being within the ambit of the rules and regulations governing the recruitment process.
14. In rejoinder learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pramod Singh Kirar V/s State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors in Civil Appeals No.s 8934- 7 Item No.13/C-4 O.A. No. 71/2025 35 of 2022 decided on 02.12.2022, relevant para of the same reads as under:-
"10. From the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Trial Court it appears that there was a matrimonial dispute which ended in settlement and the original complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile in view of settlement out of the court and the other prosecution witness(s) examined in the case did not corroborate the prosecution story. Thus, it can be seen that the appellant did not face the prosecution for the other offences of IPC.
15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is/are quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent setting aside the order of cancelling the candidature and non-appointment of the appellant as Constable is hereby restored. The respondent(s) are directed to appoint the appellant to the post of Constable, as otherwise, he was found to be meritorious and eligible for the post of Constable within a period of four weeks from today. However, it is observed that he shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment only. Present appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
15. We heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. In the present case also, it is evident that:
The criminal case was of matrimonial nature;
Section 312 IPC was not part of the final chargesheet;
The applicant was acquitted under Section 498A IPC and the remaining
offence was compounded;
The parties were granted divorce by mutual consent;
The applicant disclosed the case in his attestation form;
The criminal case was not suppressed;
16. In light of the above facts and circumstances, and following the ratio laid down in Pramod Singh Kirar (supra), we are of the view that the impugned cancellation order suffers from non-application of mind and does not sufficiently consider the nature of acquittal, full disclosure, and settled matrimonial dispute.8
Item No.13/C-4 O.A. No. 71/2025
17. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Respondents for reconsideration of the applicant's candidature in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and other relevant facts placed on record. The Respondents are directed to appoint the appellant to the post of Constable, as otherwise, he was found to be meritorious and eligible for the post of Constable within a period of four weeks from today. However, it is observed that he shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment only.
18. In view of the above, the present Original Application is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/arti/