Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Akash vs Home Affairs on 29 January, 2026
1
Item No. 109 O.A. No. 404/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 404/2025
This the 29th day of January, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Akash
(Roll No. 2201004205)
Age 25 years
S/o Shri. Pawan Kumar,
R/o Gali No. 11, Dabur Colony,
Near Garima Garden Bhiwani,
Haryana-127021
...Applicant
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
NDCC-II Building,
Jai Singh Road,
Near Jantar Mantar,
New Delhi- 110001
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi.
3. The Addl. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment, New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-110009
4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment, New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
SHILPI GUPTA
Delhi- 110009
SHILPI GUPTA2026.02.03 ....Respondents
17:08:33+01'00'
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Manish Kumar)
2
Item No. 109 O.A. No. 404/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) Present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
"8. (1) To set aside the SCN and impugned order dated 21.03.2024, 04.12.2024 and to further direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Driver) Male in Delhi Police with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.
and/ or Any other relief which this Hon 'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case learned counsel for the applicant points out that chargesheet has not been filed against the applicant and he has been placed under column number 12 in the present matter, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents in the counter affidavit. He draws attention to the para 13 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:-
"13. That the matter of the Applicant was placed: before the Screening Committee for examination. · The Screening Committee observed that the complainant Pinki Yadav has alleged that she was harassed by her husband and in-laws including brother-in-law (candidate) for dowry. The case is of heinous nature. Although the candidate has been placed. In Column No. SHILPI GUPTA 12, the other accused have been charge J sheeted SHILPI GUPTA2026.02.03 17:08:33+01'00' under various stringent sections of laws and the case is pending trial. Since, the case is pending trial, involvement of the candidate may be surfaced during 3 Item No. 109 O.A. No. 404/2025 Court No. IV trial and he may be summoned u js 319 Cr.P.C. Hence, Screening Committee was of the view that decision regarding his candidature is kept pending till final outcome of the case before learned Trial Court. The decision of the Screening Committee was received vide PHQ's U.O. No. 4754/ Rectt. Cell (AC-III) / PHQ dated 25.1 1.2024. The copy of PHQ's U.O. No. 4754/Rectt. Cell (AC-III) / PHQ dated 25.11.2024 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R- 2."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit and states that the candidature of the applicant has not been cancelled it has been withheld due to the pendency of the criminal case. He relies upon the Standing order HRD/12/2022 which provides for policy for deciding cases of provisionally selected candidates in Delhi Police, who have disclosed their involvement in Criminal Cases/ Acquittal/ Discharge etc. or concealed the same while furnishing information in Attestation Form for the purpose of verification of Character & Antecedents.
4. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. We draw a reference to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5718/2023, decided on 31.05.2023 titled as Vikram Ruhal Vs. Delhi Police & Ors., where similar offences of SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA2026.02.03 17:08:33+01'00' 490 were involved in the present more important is 4 Item No. 109 O.A. No. 404/2025 Court No. IV that the applicant herein has neither been charge sheeted nor charges have been framed, the applicant herein has been placed under column no. 12. While disposing of the matter of the Vikram Ruhal, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-
"16. Having said so, it may be observed that the Standing Order No. 398/2018 dated October 18, 2018 of the respondents does provide for a policy for deciding cases of provisionally selected candidates in Delhi Police who have disclosed their involvement in criminal cases/acquittal/discharge etc. However, mere possibility of being summoned after filing of chargesheet, when the petitioner has been placed in Column 12 of charge sheet, has no legal foundation for withholding the appointment, specially in matrimonial offences under Sections 498-A/406 IPC. The petitioner appears to have already suffered ignominy due to registration of FIR and also the appointment stands deferred despite the investigation pointing to his innocence. Criminal trials are generally long and protracted and appointment in such a case should not have been ordinarily deferred for an indefinite period till the conclusion of trial, despite the findings in the investigation being in favour of the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is better placed than the cases involving trial as an accused, wherein after summoning, the proceedings need to be evaluated on the yardstick of honourable acquittal, technical acquittal or if the benefit of doubt has been extended to accused. Unfortunately, in the present case, the learned Tribunal misdirected itself by assuming that the petitioner could be summoned having being placed in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet or may be summoned under Section 319 Cr.PC during the course of trial.
The proposition of law as referred by the learned Tribunal in SWIL Ltd. vs. State of Delhi & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 670, Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam (2020) 2 SCC 217, Nahar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in C.A. 443/2002 (arising out of petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8447/2015) decided on March 16, 2022, Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar Civil Appeal No.4960/2021 on decided on August 25, 2021 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 195/2022 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6545/2020), is undisputed and needs no deliberations.
SHILPI GUPTA It is pertinent to note that at the time of taking of SHILPI GUPTA2026.02.03 17:08:33+01'00' cognizance on the charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate having applied its mind to the facts of the case and on the basis of the evidence on record, did not 5 Item No. 109 O.A. No. 404/2025 Court No. IV deem it appropriate to summon the petitioner. If the petitioner whose name is placed in Column No. 12 had not been summoned after taking of cognizance by the learned JMIC, a presumption could not have been drawn that the petitioner may be summoned at a later stage under Section 319 Cr.PC. It may be clarified that even if a person is neither arrayed as an accused nor placed in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet, he/she may still be summoned under Section 319 Cr.PC, where in the course of any trial into an offence, it appears from the evidence that the said person has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with other accused.
17. Considering that the petitioner had been placed in Column No. 12 of charge-sheet and the fact that evidence did not establish his involvement in aforesaid offences after investigation, he should have been logically considered suitable for appointment. Merely being named in the FIR cannot be treated as an impediment for public appointment, unless the involvement is substantiated on investigation, specially in relation to matrimonial offences.
The Competent Authority as well as the learned Tribunal appear to have ignored the fact that there is a growing tendency amongst the women to rope in all the relatives including minors in case an FIR is lodged with reference to matrimonial disputes. Many of such complaints are eventually either settled between the families/spouses and are later on stated to have been filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. The abuse of the aforesaid provision has been substantially noticed though the salutary purpose of the enactment cannot be ignored in any manner. Merely naming in the FIR does not lead to an inference that the employer can keep in abeyance the employment of an applicant for an indefinite period, even if the applicant has been placed in column No. 12 of the charge-sheet and has not been summoned.
18. In the facts and circumstances, the Competent Authority as well as the learned Tribunal, failed to consider the facts and circumstances in a correct perspective and were merely swept by the factum of the petitioner being named in the FIR. There is nothing else on record to reflect that the antecedents of the petitioner disqualify him in any manner for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe) in Delhi Police. It is difficult to presume that the petitioner would be a threat to the discipline of Police Force merely on account of registration of the aforesaid FIR wherein he has even not been summoned.
19. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to agree with the reasons accorded by the learned Tribunal declining the relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, we set SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA2026.02.03 aside the order dated September 11, 2020 and 17:08:33+01'00' December 02, 2020 passed by the respondents along with the impugned order dated February 20, 2023 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 45/2021 deferring 6 Item No. 109 O.A. No. 404/2025 Court No. IV the consideration of appointment of petitioner till disposal of FIR No. 234/2018.
Respondents are hereby directed to appoint the petitioner to the concerned post, subject to his satisfying all other conditions within a period of four weeks from the passing of this order. Petitioner shall be further entitled to all consequential benefits including seniority on notional basis, but the payment of salary shall be due from the date of joining.
20. Petition accordingly stands allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
6. Merely because an FIR is pending does not ipso facto come to an conclusion that the applicant can be penalized and he cannot be allowed to join duties. More particularly in light of the offences are under 498. We agree with the preposition highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant in Vikram Ruhal (supra). Present case is only relates to withholding of the joining of the applicant which cannot be considered as an impediment.
7. We also observe that recently Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in identical situation in W.P. No. 13913/2024 decided on 14.11.2024 titled as Vikas Nagar Vs. Union of India and Ors. has held as under:-
"4. We, therefore, dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned letter dated 03.09.2024, issued by respondent no.2. The petitioner shall be allowed to join the post of Constable DCPO in the CISF subject to the outcome of the criminal case, that is, Case No.6431/2023 arising out of the FIR No.322/2023 dated 30.08.2023, registered at Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) under Sections 376/377/354/364/511/323/504/506/452 of the SHILPI GUPTA Indian Penal Code, 1860, and pending before the SHILPI GUPTA2026.02.03 Competent Court at Sambhal. In case the petitioner is 17:08:33+01'00' eventually convicted in that case, the respondents shall be free to terminate the services of the petitioner, without the petitioner having any equity in his favour 7 Item No. 109 O.A. No. 404/2025 Court No. IV due to this Order or his service rendered in the interim. We further clarify that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any service benefits for the service that is rendered by him, in case of his conviction, except for the pay that he has earned for that period."
8. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the respondents. Based on the aforesaid preposition of Hon'ble High Court in para 4 of Vikas Nagar (supra), the impugned action of the respondents of withholding the joining of the applicant is liable to be quashed and set aside.
9. The respondents are directed to issue offer of appointment to the applicant and allow the applicant to join to the post of Constable (Driver) Male in Delhi Police, if he is otherwise found fit and eligible, subject to outcome of the criminal case pending against the applicant, which shall not be considered as an impediment. It is also made clear that in case the applicant is eventually convicted in that case, the respondents shall be free to terminate the services of the applicant, without the applicant having any equity in his favour due to this Order or his service rendered in the interim. We further clarify that the applicant SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA2026.02.03 shall not be entitled for any service benefits for the 17:08:33+01'00' service that is rendered by him, in case of his 8 Item No. 109 O.A. No. 404/2025 Court No. IV conviction, except for the pay that he has earned for that period.
10. Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Associated M.As, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/
SHILPI GUPTA
SHILPI GUPTA2026.02.03
17:08:33+01'00'