Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nitesh Mathur vs Delhi Police on 20 April, 2026
Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025
3
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.201/2025
No.
This the 20th day of April, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Nitesh Mathur, Age
ge about 29 years (Group C)
S/o Sh. Sunil Kumar R/o House No. 70, Devi
wari, VPO- Karala, Delhi-110081
110081.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav, Dr. Monika Bhargava
Bhargava)
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police, PHQ, Jai
Singh Road New Delhi-110001.
Delhi
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment, New Police lines, Kingsway
camp, Delhi-110009.
...Respondent
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Bijendera Singh Sharma)
Sharma
Page 1 of 11
SURAJ BISHT
Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025
3
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Garg Member (J) In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant ha has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(1) (1) Quash and set aside show cause notice Dated 21.03.2024 and rejection order dated 9.12.2024.
(2) Direct the respondents to give appointment to the post Head constable Ministerial 2022 along with arrears and consequential benefits.
(3) Call for records (4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant."
applicant.
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure A A-1)
1) was issued to the applicant. He submits that the said notice runs contrary to the letter and spirit of assessing the suit suitability of a candidate by the Screening Committee, inasmuch as it does not clearly contemplate the proposed action to be taken. Though it indicates that the candidature of the applicant may be rejected, it assumes significance that the respondents have issued issued the show cause notice with a predetermined mindset, without considering the case of the applicant in a holistic manner. He further submits that the Page 2 of 11 SURAJ BISHT Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025 3 impugned order dated 09.12.2024 has resulted in miscarriage of justice due to non non-application application of mind by the competent authorities, inasmuch as the quashing of FIR under Sections 308/323/34 IPC, PS Begumpur, Outer District, Delhi, has been construed against the applicant rather than in his favour. It is also contended that the reasoning assigned in the impugned impugned order is based on a predetermined decision relying upon the judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. Methu Meda Meda.. While he does not dispute the proposition laid down therein, he submits that the case of the applicant must be examined independently in light of its own facts and circumstances. It is further submitted that the observation of the Screening Committee that the applicant was involved in a heinous offence has been made without examining the medical records placed before it. Drawing attention to the MLC report, it is submitted that the injuries, on the face of it, are simple in nature as reflected in the Medical Legal Certificate. Therefore, both the show cause notice and the impugned order are unsustainable in law.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant applicant has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 551 and drawn attention to paragraph 20, which reads as under:
Page 3 of 11SURAJ BISHT Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025 3 "20.
20. In the present case, the factum of of service of the show show-cause notice dated 10-4-2018 2018 by the Corporation upon the appellant is not in dispute.
Rather, what Shri Banerji has argued on behalf of the appellant is that the contents of the said show-cause show cause notice were not such that the appellant could have anticipated that an order of blacklisting was being contemplated by the Corporation. Gorkha Security Services is a case where this Court had to decide whether the action of blacklisting could have been taken without specifically proposing/contemplating proposing/contemplating such an action in the show-cause cause notice. For this purpose, this Court laid down the below guidelines as to the contents of a show-cause show cause notice pursuant to which adverse action such as blacklisting may be adopted: (SCC pp. 118 118- 19, paras 21-22) "Contents of the show-cause cause notice
21. The central issue, however, pertains to the requirement of stating the action which is proposed to be taken. The fundamental purpose behind the serving of show-cause cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise casese set up against him which he has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed, so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. Another requirement, according to us, is the nature nature of action which is proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the given case, even if the defaults/breaches complained of are not satisfactorily explained.
xplained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the more imperative. having regard to the fact that it is harshest possible action.
22. The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show show-cause notice is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent. However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz:
(i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action:
(ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit.
We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show-cause cause notice but it can clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement."
requirement.""
Page 4 of 11SURAJ BISHT Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025 3
4. He has also relies upon the decision render by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oryx Fisheries Private Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 427, highlighting para 40, which reads as under:
"40.
40. In Kranti Associates this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which are set out below:
ow: (SCC pp. 510-12) 510 "(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c)
c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial quasi judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable indispensable a component of a decision-making making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision decision-
making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i)) Judicial or even quasi-judicial quasi judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively objectively considered. This is Page 5 of 11 SURAJ BISHT Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025 3 important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi--judicial authority is not candid did enough about his/her decision-making making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(1) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp 'rubber stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making decision process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision decision-making not only makes akes the judges and decision-makers decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.) 731 37.)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broa broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain, EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein thethe Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions'.
(0) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of 'due process'."
5. The sum and substance of the arguments can also be gathered from paragraph 32 of the said judgment in Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) (supra),, which reads as under:
"32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause show cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show-cause cause notice."Page 6 of 11
SURAJ BISHT Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025 3
6. He further relies upon the decision rendered by this Bench in O.A. No. 5009/2024 pronounced on 05.02.2026 titled Rampur Gurjar urjar vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr.
7. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit.
He submits that the decision has been taken in accordance with the applicable Standing Orders and that the suitability of the applica applicant is to be assessed by the competent authority. He further submits that the present case pertains to employment in a disciplined force and, therefore, the allegations reflected in the FIR, charge sheet, and related material clearly indicate involvement of the applicant in a serious offence under Sections 308/323/34 IPC, which cannot be taken lightly. It is further submitted that the matter must be examined on the touchstone of suitability for public employment in a disciplined force rather than on the limited limited question of pendency of departmental proceedings. He asserts that the respondents have applied their independent mind and, being senior officials, there is no mala fide in passing the impugned order.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and and perused the records. Insofar as the issue of the show cause notice is concerned, we do not find any material irregularity, as the respondents issued the Page 7 of 11 SURAJ BISHT Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025 3 notice based on disclosures made by the applicant. It is not a case of suppression of material particulars particulars in the attestation form. Based on the details submitted, the competent authority undertook an independent assessment and passed a speaking order, observing as under:
"In pursuance of the instructions contained in HRD/12/2022, your case along-with reply to SCN as well as documents submitted by you in your claim was placed before the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee examined your case at length and observed that case FIR No. FIR No.773/2014 dated 20.07.2014, U/s 308/323/34 IPC was registeregistered on the complaint of Sh. Shiva stated allegation on that he resides on rent and works as AC repair mechanic. On 20.07.2024, two boys came in an Alto car and ask to repair near window of right side door. His brother Ravi repaired and asked for Rs.150/-
Rs.150/ ass fixed but the boys gave him Rs. 100/- only. His brother asked for full payment of Rs. 150/-
150/ on which they got off from car and started beating him but he managed to save his brother Ravi. At the same time their 2/3 friends came in one Accent car and they started beating him and his brother Ravi. The boys were carrying danda, Iron Road and Hockey Stick. One of boy Nitesh (candidate) attacked him with Hockey stick on his hand while another boy attacked his brother Ravi on his head due to which he started bl bleeding profusely from his head. After investigation a charge sheet filed against all accused persons including you u/s 308/323/34/IPC.
The Screening Committee observed that the FIR was quashed as both the parties moved the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on thethe ground that the parties have settled the matter. you along with other accused persons involved in heinous nature case of attempt to commit culpable homicide and charge-sheeted sheeted u/s 308 IPC. You were severely beat a car mechanic Ravi on minor issue on seeking see payment of just Rs. 150/- for the repair work. You had to tender his unqualified apology before the Hon'ble court for the misbehavior conducted and assured that you along with accused will not indulge in such incident in future. The Hon'ble court also directed to compensate the complainant by paying a sum of Rs.10,000/ Rs.10,000/- for the medical expenses and the trauma caused to him. Apart from this you along-with with accused persons were directed to deposit a consolidated sum of Rs.25,000/- with the Prime Minister's Minister's Relief Fund. Therefore, it shows your involvement in the case. The involvement of your in such a case shows your violent behavior, bully type nature and propensity to indulge in crime without any fear of laws. In view of observations of Hon'ble Apex Courtt in UOI Vs. Methu Meda "Acquitted of candidate can't be considered as "Honourable Acquitted". The committee further found that Page 8 of 11 SURAJ BISHT Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025 3 you having such conduct and no respect for law enforcing agency and in a disciplined force like Delhi Police, hence your reply tto show cause notice tice is not convincing and not recommended recommended your name for appointment in Delhi Police.
In view of the facts & circumstance mentioned above, the show cause notice issued vide No.8252/Rectt.Cell/DA-II No.8252/Rectt.Cell/DA II (SI Cell)/NPL, dated 21.03.2024 is hereby confirmed. As such your candidature for recruitment to the post of HC (Min.) in Delhi Police examination. 2022 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. No further correspondence, in this regard, will be entertained.
This issues with the approval of CP/Delhi."
CP/D
9. However, we are concerned with the reasoning assigned by the competent authority, i.e., the Screening Committee. In arriving at the assessment of suitability, the authority has made observations which cannot be accepted, as they tend to prejudge the case of the applicant with a predetermined mindset. It is well settled that authorities must manifestly keep an open mind while adjudicating such matters, especially when punitive consequences may follow. The assessment appears one one-sided sided and is primarily primarily based on the FIR and charge sheet, as if the allegations therein stood proved after a full-fledged full fledged trial, which is not the case here. Although offences under Sections 308/323/34 IPC may be considered serious, the aspect of suitability must be examined iin n the context of whether the allegations have been proved, partly proved, or adjudicated after trial.
10.. In the present case, the FIR has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court on the basis of a settlement. The MLC report indicates Page 9 of 11 SURAJ BISHT Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025 3 that the injuries were simple in nature. Whether such injuries attract the offence under Section 308 IPC is a matter of trial, which has not taken place. Further, the observations in the impugned order describing the applicant as having a "violent behaviour, bully type nature an andd propensity to indulge in crime without any fear of law" are without any substantive basis and are founded merely on allegations in the FIR. Such conclusions, in the absence of adjudication, are unsustainable. It is also noted that the directions of the H Hon'ble High Court regarding payment of compensation and deposit consolidated payment in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund have been construed adversely against the applicant. Such directions are generally issued in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to balance equities, compensate victims, and serve as a deterrent, and cannot be used as a ground to infer guilt or unsuitability.
11.. In view of the aforesaid, we quash and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 and rejection order date dated 09.12.2024. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant by taking a holistic view, having regard to the nature of allegations, the MLC report, and other relevant material. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity of persona personal hearing.
Thereafter, the Screening Committee shall pass a reasoned and Page 10 of 11 SURAJ BISHT Item No.85/C-4 O.A. No.201/2025 3 speaking order. It is made clear that no stigmatic observations shall be made while assessing the suitability of the applicant. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12.. The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
Dr. Anand S Khati Manish Garg
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 11 of 11
SURAJ BISHT