Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hitesh Khatri vs Dsssb on 30 April, 2026
1
Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 7/2023
Reserved on : 13.04.2026
Pronounced on: 30.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Hitesh Khatri, Aged about 29 years
S/o Satbir Singh
R/o 7B Sadh Mohalla North West Village Miranki Delhi- 110036
Mob. No. 7838333393
Post:. Warder (Male)
Post Code: 62/15, Group - C
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Subham Bahl, Mr. Nikhil Pawar for Mr. Anuj
Aggarwal)
Versus
1. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Chairman
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooina, Delhi-110092
Email: [email protected]
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The Director General (Prison)
Office of the Director General of Prison,
Prisons Head Quarter,
Near Lajwanti Garden Chowk,
Janakpuri, New Delhi, 110058
Email: [email protected]
3. Superintendent-I
Headquarters Office
Office of the Director General of Prisons
Prisons Headquarters
Near Lajwanti Garden Chowk
Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058 , Email: [email protected].
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Tanmay Vashistha for Mr. Amit Anand, Ms. Garima
for Mr. Awanish Kumar)
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:11:48
ANI +05'30'
2
Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Set aside the impugned Order dated 08.12.2021, passed by the respondents whereby the candidature of the applicant for appointment on the post of Warder (Male) (Post Code 62/15) in Prison Department, Govt.
of NCT of Delhi, was cancelled;
(ii) Direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for the appointment on the post of Warder (Male) (Post Code 62/15) in Prison Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and thereafter appoint the applicant on the post of Warder (Male) (Post Code 62/15) in Prison Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi with all consequential benefits (monetary as well as non-monetary) including seniority, back wages, continuity of service, etc.;
(iii) Allow the present Original Application with costs in favour of the applicant;
(iv) Issue any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in favour of the applicant."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present Original Application has been filed challenging the impugned Office Order dated 08.12.2021, whereby the candidature of the applicant for the post of Warder (Male) (Post Code 62/15) in the Prison Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, has been arbitrarily cancelled without assigning any reasons.
2.1. Learned counsel contended that the applicant had successfully cleared all stages of the selection process, including physical and written examinations, was duly shortlisted, provisionally selected, medically examined, and even issued an offer of appointment. The only impediment cited was the pendency of two FIRs, both of which were subsequently quashed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 23.07.2021 and ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:48 ANI +05'30' 3 Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023 Court No. IV 11.10.2021 prior to the cancellation of candidature, and the same was duly disclosed by the applicant in good faith.
2.2. Learned counsel argued that despite the aforesaid facts, the respondents failed to consider the applicant's case and passed the impugned order in a mechanical and unjustified manner, thereby violating the Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
2.3. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel argued that similarly situated candidates have already been appointed, whereas the applicant has been left remediless, unemployed, and now overage, making the present OA necessary to seek appropriate reliefs.
2.4. Learned counsel relied upon the following case laws of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
I. Nar Singh Pal vs. Union of India & Ors.
Decided on 29.03.2000
(2000) 3 SCC 588
II. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya
Gramin Bank vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors. Decided on 26.03.2009 (2009) 4 SCC 240 III. Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.
Decided on 08.09.2010 (2010) 9 SCC 496 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:11:48
ANI +05'30'
4
Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023
Court No. IV
IV. Mandeep Kaur vs. Canara Bank & Ors.
CWP No. 1827/2019, decided on 31.10.2022
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the present Original Application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed qua the answering respondent as the DSSSB merely conducted the recruitment process in terms of Advertisement No. 1/2015 for the post of Warder (Male) (Post Code 62/15), wherein the applicant duly participated, secured 128.72 marks, and was provisionally selected vide result notice dated 11.10.2019, after which his dossier was forwarded to the user department.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the candidature of the applicant was not cancelled by DSSSB but by the user department, i.e., the Prison Department, vide order dated 08.12.2021, and therefore DSSSB has no role in the impugned action. Hence, DSSSB is only a proforma party, and the OA deserves to be dismissed against Respondent No. 1.
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the present Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, as the impugned action of cancelling the candidature of the applicant is lawful, justified, and in consonance with settled legal principles.
4.1. Learned counsel contended that although the FIRs registered against the applicant were quashed by the Hon'ble High Court, such quashing on the basis of compromise does not amount to an honourable acquittal, and ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:48 ANI +05'30' 5 Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023 Court No. IV therefore does not automatically entitle the applicant to appointment. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh vs. Pardeep Kumar and Commissioner of Police vs. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685.
4.2. Learned counsel argued that the nature of acquittal, antecedents, and overall suitability of a candidate are crucial considerations, especially for disciplined forces. It was further argued that the post of Warder in the Prison Department requires a person of impeccable character and integrity, and the Screening Committee, after considering the applicant's involvement in criminal cases, rightly found him unsuitable. Hence, the cancellation of candidature is neither arbitrary nor illegal, and the present OA deserves to be dismissed with costs.
5. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has clean antecedents, as both FIRs registered against him were duly quashed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 23.07.2021 and 11.10.2021, and therefore there remains no legal impediment to his appointment.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
7. ANALYSIS :
7.1 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings on record. The core issue for determination is whether the action ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:48 ANI +05'30' 6 Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023 Court No. IV of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicant, notwithstanding the quashing of the FIRs by the Hon'ble High Court, suffers from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity so as to warrant interference in exercise of judicial review. 7.2. "Public employment is scarce. The youth of the country eagerly await such employment opportunities, as and when the same are thrown open, with fervent hopes for a brighter future." (See: Civil Appeal No. 4150 of 2026 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12269/2026 @ Diary No. 10302/2026, Commissioner, Delhi Police & Anr. vs. Uttam Kumar, decided on 02.04.2026, reported as 2026 INSC 314). 7.3 In the present case, the applicant was involved in two FIRs, which were subsequently quashed by the Hon'ble High Court, and reliance is sought to be placed upon the said quashing to contend that no adverse inference can be drawn against him. It is further observed that although the impugned order does not specifically deal with the issue of suitability of the candidate in light of the quashing of the FIRs, the same is required to be examined having regard to the nature and duties attached to the post in question. The post in question is that of Warder in the Prison Department, which is a sensitive post involving maintenance of discipline, security, and control within the prison establishment.
7.4. The offences involved under two FIR are as under :-
"Section 336 IPC Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:48 ANI +05'30' 7 Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023 Court No. IV Section 506 Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt -- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 34 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.-- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 323 Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 341 Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 509 Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
Section 427 Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.--
Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 34 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:48 ANI +05'30' 8 Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023 Court No. IV 7.5 We also take notice of the fact that in paragraph 3 of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CRL. M.C. No. 1858/2020, it was, inter alia, recorded as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 323/341/509/427/34 IPC however, subsequently, on recording of statements of respondents No. 3 and 4 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., charge sheet under Section 376 IPC was also filed. He further submits that later, the trial Court while hearing the arguments on charge. came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out and accordingly the said section was dropped vide order dated 23.01.2020."
7.6 Noticing the above offences, it is observed that the same cannot be treated as trivial in nature, particularly having regard to the nature of allegations and the duties attached to the post in question. The said offences do not fall within any category which may warrant a liberal view in favour of the applicant on the touchstone of the law laid down in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471. On the contrary, the said judgment clearly recognizes that the employer is entitled to consider the nature and gravity of criminal antecedents while assessing suitability for appointment, and is not bound to mechanically accept the candidature merely because of quashing or closure of proceedings. It further permits the employer to evaluate overall suitability, particularly in cases involving sensitive posts, such as the present one, where standards of integrity and discipline are of paramount importance.
7.7 It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment to public employment, and it remains open to the employer to consider the antecedents and assess suitability for the post in question. From the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police vs. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:48 ANI +05'30' 9 Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023 Court No. IV 685] and State of M.P. vs. Parvez Khan [(2015) 2 SCC 591], it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police or a disciplined force must be of impeccable character and integrity, and a person with criminal antecedents may not fall within this category. Even where a candidate is acquitted or discharged, it cannot automatically be presumed that such acquittal is honourable or that the candidate stands completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee is ordinarily to be respected unless shown to be mala fide or arbitrary. Further, in paragraph 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where acquittal or discharge has been recorded in cases involving moral turpitude or serious offences, particularly on compromise, the employer is entitled to examine all relevant facts relating to antecedents and take an appropriate decision regarding suitability. Such discharge or acquittal, by its very nature, cannot be equated with a clean or honourable acquittal so as to confer an automatic right to appointment in a disciplined service. The Hon'ble Court has further clarified that the determination of suitability is within the domain of the employer, and the explanation cannot be read to mean that all other acquitted or discharged persons are automatically suitable; rather, suitability is to be assessed on a case-to-case basis depending upon the nature and gravity of the offence and the duties of the post.
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the decision of the respondents cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal. The ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:48 ANI +05'30' 10 Item No. 66 O.A. No. 7/2023 Court No. IV impugned order is supported by due application of mind and is in consonance with settled principles governing service jurisprudence. Accordingly, no ground is made out for interference by this Tribunal. Hence, the Original Application is dismissed. 8.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:11:48
ANI +05'30'