Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar vs Delhi Police on 14 May, 2026
1
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 34/2025
Reserved on : 05.05.2026
Pronounced on: 14.05.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Anil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ramesh,
R/o Village Post Ghitora,
Tehsil - Khekra,
Baghpat,
Uttar Pradesh - 250101.
(Aged about 29 years)
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police)
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Hdqrs.,
(New Building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(Recruitment Cell),
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 110052
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. U. Srivastava, Ms. Vanshika)
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAK 15
10:39:18
LANI +05'30'
2
Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) quash and set aside impugned order dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure A/1) along with impugned show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure N2) and;'
(b) direct the respondents to forthwith consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Driver) and;
(c) accord of all consequential benefits including monetary and seniority benefits
(d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
(e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants"
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 and show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 whereby the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police has been illegally cancelled despite his successful selection in the recruitment process under Roll No. 2201032922. 2.1. It was argued that the respondents acted mechanically and without due application of mind solely on the basis of two FIRs arising out of matrimonial discord with the applicant's estranged wife. The first FIR No. 264/2020 dated 21.07.2020 under Sections 498A/323/325/506 IPC, P.S. Khekda, Baghpat culminated in acquittal vide judgment dated 26.04.2022 after compromise and settlement between the parties, while in the second FIR No. 114/2023 dated 01.04.2023 under Sections 323/504/307/354B IPC, P.S. Khekda, Baghpat, the applicant was not even chargesheeted upon ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 3 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV investigation and the chargesheet was filed only against certain family members including his elder brother Sunil. 2.2. Learned counsel submitted that despite this admitted position and despite the Delhi Police Standing Order No. HRD/12//2022 clearly prohibiting adverse suitability assessment where a candidate has not been chargesheeted, the respondents wrongly treated the applicant as involved in a criminal case and cancelled his candidature arbitrarily, rendering the impugned action illegal, unjust and liable to be quashed. 2.3. Learned counsel drew our attention to the judgment dated 26.04.2022 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, which reads as under:
"Police of Khekra police station, Bagpat district, has presented a charge sheet against the accused Anil, Ramesh and Shyamvati under the sections 498A, 323, 325, 506 of the Indian Penal Code for trial.
Briefly, the prosecution story is that the plaintiff Puja daughter of late Shri Maheshchandra, resident of village Khanpur Jabdi, Thana Tronica City, District Ghaziabad gave a written complaint to the SHO Khekda, District Baghpat to the effect that the applicant was married about six-seven years ago to Anil son of Ramesh resident of village Ghitoura, Thana Khekda district Baghpat according to Hindu customs and her elder sister Kavita daughter of Maheshchand was also married to Sunil son of Ramesh resident of Ghitoura. Opponents Anil son of Ramesh, Ramesh son of Surji Nambardar, Shyamvati wife of Ramesh etc. have been beating her since her marriage and the opponents also threaten to kill her sister Kavita. On 24-07-2020 at around nine-ten o'clock, she was again beaten and she suffered a lot of injuries in the beating, which she informed her brother over the phone, upon which her brother Manoj son of late Maheshchand brought her from there to Thana Khekda and from the police station the police took her and got her medical done. Requested that a report be filed and legal action be taken.
On the basis of the above complaint of the plaintiff, a First Information Report was filed against the accused. Investigation of the case began. During the investigation, the investigating officer collected necessary evidence and after investigation, a chargesheet was sent for trial against the accused under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
When the chargesheet was received, cognizance was taken on it. When the accused appeared, they were charged under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the charges and demanded trial.
On behalf of the prosecution, witnesses PW 1 Pooja and PW 2 Mrs. Kavita have been examined. No other witness has been examined. On behalf of the prosecution, Tahrir, GD First Information Report, Map Nazri, Chargesheet, Medical Form etc. have been presented as documentary evidence. The learned advocate of the accused accepted the veracity of the formal documents of the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 4 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV prosecution. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which the accused said that a false case is being tried and refused to present defence evidence.
The court heard the arguments of the Assistant Prosecution Officer on behalf of the prosecution and the learned advocates of the accused and thoroughly examined the evidence available on the file.
It is clear from the perusal of the evidence available on the file that in the present case, the prosecution has examined only one witness plaintiff/victim to prove its story beyond reasonable doubt. PW 1 Mrs. Pooja has not supported the prosecution story in her main examination and has stated that after marriage, when I went to my in-laws' house, my husband Anil, father-in-law Ramesh, mother-in-law Shyamvati who is present in the court today, these people were happy with my marriage and these people never harassed me physically and mentally in my in-laws' house regarding dowry, neither did these people beat me on 24-07-2020 at 9 o'clock, nor did they seriously injure me and nor did they threaten to kill me. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. During cross-examination, the witness identified her signature on the report as Exhibit A 01 and said that it was correct to say that she had undergone medical examination in District Hospital Baghpat. She had fallen while working at her in-laws' place and that is why she had to undergo medical examination. The witness expressed ignorance about the statement written by the investigator and denied the suggestions of the prosecution. It was correct to say that she is currently living with her husband.
She has no differences with anyone in her in-laws' house. This witness was also cross examined by the learned advocate of the accused in which she stated that I did not read and hear Exhibit A 01 on the file from the person who had written it. I had only signed it. I cannot tell what was written in the said complaint. It has been a long time, I do not remember who had written the complaint. The witness expressed ignorance about the things written in the complaint and stated regarding her injuries that she had got injured due to slipping in the bathroom. My husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law did not beat me for dowry, nor was I harassed for dowry. I am happy with my husband in my in-laws' house. My sister Kavita is also married to my brother-in-law Sunil, I have not told her also about being harassed by my in-laws for dowry.
PW 2 Mrs. Kavita has stated in her examination in chief that her younger sister Pooja was married about eight years ago. Pooja was married to Anil. Her father and mother had spent according to their status in the marriage. After the marriage, Anil, Shyamvati, nor my father-in-law Ramesh had demanded any dowry from me or my sister. On 24-07-2020, I was at my in-laws' house. Anil, Shyamvati and Ramesh had not demanded any dowry from my sister Pooja, nor had they beaten her, abused her, threatened to kill her, nor had they caused serious injury. This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. During the cross-examination, the witness has denied the suggestions, expressing ignorance about the statement written by the investigator under Section 161 CrPC. It is correct to say that his younger sister Pooja was married to Anil. Whereas I was married to Anil's brother Sunil. Both are real brothers. It is correct to say that my sister Pooja is living with her husband Anil. This witness was also cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that in my presence, no dowry demand was made from Pooja by my in-laws. Pooja slipped in the bathroom due to which she got injured on 24-07-2020. She was going home on the same day. Pooja was not beaten in my presence. It is true that both the sisters were married together in the same mandap. Both of us sisters were given equal things by our family members. I am happy in my in-laws' house. Pooja is also ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 5 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV living with Anil. Both of us sisters are living together in the same house and are happy in our in-laws' house.
It is clear from the above discussion and analysis of the evidence available on the file that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused deserve to be acquitted under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Accused Anil, Ramesh and Shyamvati are acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 506 of the IPC. The accused are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are released from their liability.
The accused have submitted bail bond and surety in compliance with Section 437A CrPC, which will remain valid for 6 months from the date of judgment."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police has been rightly cancelled after due consideration by the duly constituted Screening Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) No. 20525/2011; Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Mehar Singh, Civil Appeal No. 4842/2013; Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. v. Shani Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4965/2013; Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5671/2012; State of M.P. & Ors. v. Parvez Khan, Civil Appeal No. 10613/2014; Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 67/2018; Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Raj Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4960/2021; and Union of India & Ors. v. Methu Meda, Civil Appeal No. 6238/2021. 3.1. Learned counsel argued that the applicant was involved in two criminal cases arising out of serious allegations made by his wife relating to ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 6 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV cruelty, assault and attempt to murder; in FIR No. 264/2020 under Sections 498A/323/325/506 IPC, though acquitted, such acquittal cannot be treated as an "honourable acquittal" since the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, while in FIR No. 114/2023 under Sections 323/504/307/354B IPC, grave allegations were again levelled against him by his wife. 3.2. Learned counsel submitted that being the husband and principal accused in matrimonial offences involving violence against a woman, the applicant's antecedents reflected disrespect towards women, violent propensity and conduct unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force like Delhi Police, and therefore the Screening Committee, after detailed assessment of his overall suitability and considering his reply to the show cause notice as unconvincing, rightly found him "Not Recommended" for appointment, rendering the impugned action legal, justified and in consonance with the applicable rules and judicial precedents.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had made full and truthful disclosure of both criminal cases in the attestation form and there was no suppression whatsoever. 4.1. Learned counsel argued that mere registration of an FIR cannot constitute criminal antecedents and the respondents have illegally treated the applicant as guilty despite judicial exoneration. Learned counsel further submits that reliance placed upon Union of India v. Methu Meda, (supra) and Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh (supra), is wholly misplaced in the facts of the present case, whereas the law laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (supra) squarely applies, which protects candidates where ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 7 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV there is no suppression and the criminal case has resulted in acquittal or exoneration.
4.2. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5718/2023 titled Vikram Ruhal vs. Delhi Police & ors., relevant paras of which reads as under:
"14. Keeping in perspective the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh (supra), the Competent Authority in the present case, was required to consider the suitability of the petitioner having regard to result of investigation and cognizance taken thereupon on the charge-sheet, in FIR No. 234/2018, under Section 313/323/406/498A/506/34 IPC, PS: Women Police Station, Jind. The Competent Authority was accordingly under obligation to examine the nature of offence, the evidence appearing against the petitioner and the attendant circumstances. All matters in this regard cannot be placed in a straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and discretion does vest with the authorities, who are expected to exercise the same with care and caution.
15. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner had truly disclosed on verification regarding FIR No. 234/2018, under Section 313/323/406/498A/506/34 IPC, PS: Women Police Station, Jind, which was registered before announcement of result. There has been no concealment or suppression in this regard by the petitioner. The aforesaid FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute between the brother of the petitioner namely Praveen Kumar Ruhal and his wife Anju, wherein the petitioner and all other family members have been named as an accused.
Petitioner being the brother-in-law of complainant is only a "collateral accused" and not the main accused. It may also be noticed that the investigating agency had removed Section 313 of the IPC on investigation and the surviving offences relate only to Sections 498-A/406/506/323/34 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner were generic in nature who was just aged about 19/20 years at the time of the alleged incident. As per the charge-sheet, petitioner was placed in column No. 12 and it was categorically observed that from the statement of the witnesses and record, case is only made out against the accused Parveen, Karamveer and Sarla and accordingly the challan is being forwarded to the concerned Court. It was further concluded that during verification and investigation, the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment from Vikram (petitioner) and Rekha, were found false and both Vikram and Rekha were innocent, whose names are placed in column No. 12.
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 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 8 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV 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.
It is pertinent to note that at the time of taking of 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 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 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 9 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV 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 aside the order dated September 11, 2020 and 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 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. "
4.3. Further, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Singh Kirar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. (2023 1 SCC 423), relevant paras of which, reads as under:
"9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant applied for the post of Constable in the year 2013 and as such was found to be meritorious and was found eligible to be appointed as Constable. In the verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the offence under Section 498-A IPC earlier. Therefore, as such there was no suppression on the part of the appellant in not disclosing true and correct facts. It is also required to be noted that the appellant came to be acquitted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC vide judgment and order dated 30-10- 2006 i.e. 7 years before he applied for the post of Constable.
10. From the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the 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.
11. Therefore, for whatever has happened in the year 2001 and the criminal case for the offence under Section 498-A resulted in acquittal in the year 2006, the appellant should not be denied the appointment in the year 2013/2014. The offence for which he was tried ultimately resulted ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 10 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV into acquittal had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court. Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be on settlement (between husband and wife).
12. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Anil Kanwariyas relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State is concerned on facts the said decision shall not be applicable. It was a case where the candidate as such suppressed the antecedents and by suppressing the material facts obtained appointment by fraud/misrepresentation and suppression of material fact. In that case the employee was convicted for the offences under Sections 343 and 323 IPC. Therefore, at the time of appointment he was found to be convicted. Therefore, his termination came to be upheld by this Court. In the present case such is not the situation. Neither there was any suppression of material fact on the part of the appellant nor he was convicted for any offence under the IPC. The alleged incident was of the year 2001 which resulted into acquittal in the year 2006 and he applied for the post of Constable in the year 2013/2014.
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in denying the appointment to the appellant on the post of Constable and has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the judgment and order³ passed by the learned Single Judge.
14. However, at the same time, on the principle of no work no pay, the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment.
15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) 1. 2 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is/are quashed and set aside. The judgment and order³ 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."
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. We are of the considered opinion that mere acquittal in the criminal case involving the applicant does not, by itself, confer upon him an ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 11 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV automatic or indefeasible right to be declared fit for appointment to the post in question.
6.2. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the respondents to exercise their discretion in a fair, judicious, and reasonable manner, after duly considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations and the requirements and sensitivity of the post in question. Needless to say, such as assessment should be done by the respondents on a case to case basis.
6.3. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, for the effective adjudication of the present matter, it is necessary to examine the same in the light of Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 issued by the Delhi Police. The relevant extract of the said Standing Order is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
"3. IN CASE OF DISCLOSURE OF INVOLVEMENT/ARREST/ ACQUITTAL/DISCHARGE ETC. IN CRIMINAL CASE (A) If a candidate had disclosed his/her acquittal/discharge/conviction etc. in criminal case(s), complaint case(s) etc. in the Attestation form, the Appointing Authority after obtaining the information of appeal/revision against the acquittal/discharge etc. shall issue show cause notice for the cancellation of his/her candidature before final decision in the matter.
(B) On receipt of candidate's reply, complete case may be sent to PHQ to assess the suitability for appointment in Delhi Police by the Screening Committee. From the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Mehar Singh, Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar, it is clear that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the provisionally selected candidate for appointment to the post. The Screening Committee will still have the opportunity to consider antecedents and examine whether he/she is suitable for appointment to the post in Delhi Police. The Screening Committee must also be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost care.
i) Even after due opportunity, the candidate still fails to enclose/provide the certified/photocopies of the record/investigation and trial alongwith reply to the show cause notice, then an adverse inference will be drawn against him/her. However, in such a case the Department shall make all ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 12 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV efforts to obtain the relevant documents from the authorities concerned and then the matter should be submitted before the Screening Committee for its recommendation.
ii) The recommendation of the Screening Committee should contain the view of the Committee on:-
a) The nature and extent of involvement of the candidate in the criminal case.
b) Whether he/she is acquitted on compromise/benefit of doubt/witnesses turning hostile or honorably. In cases where acquittal was out of compromise or benefit of doubt, the Screening Committee shall offer reasoned and speaking comments.
c) Nature and gravity of the charge etc. Such comment of the Screening Committee would not amount to its sitting on the judgment like a trial court, but would only amount to assessment of the suitability of a candidate involved in a criminal case for appointment in Delhi Police.
iii) The final decision on the show cause notice shall be passed as per the recommendations of the Screening Committee. If the Committee does not recommend the case, show cause notice may be confirmed and candidature may be cancelled by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
The complete dossiers of such candidate must be kept in record.
iv) In case of recommendations for joining, show cause notice may be vacated and candidate may be allowed to join Delhi Police after fulfillment of other essential conditions. Reference to this effect must be indicated in the Letter of "Offer of Appointment" as well as Character- Roll and all relevant documents/papers shall be kept with the Fauzi- Missal.
(C) In case, any appeal/revision etc. against the acquittal/conviction/discharge etc. is pending, then the Screening Committee will decide upon the candidature based on the nature of criminal case.
If the case is of trivial nature, then in view of the judgment in Avtar Singh versus Union of India, Supreme Court, 2016, the Screening Committee, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, after ascertaining the suitability of the candidate, may recommend appointment of the candidate, subject to decision of such case. If the case is not of trivial nature then the suitability of the candidate/candidature would be decided by the Screening Committee, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. (D) In case when facts have been truthfully declared in Character Verification/Attestation Form regarding pendency/involvement in criminal case(s), complaint case(s), preventive proceedings etc. of trivial nature or otherwise, the matter will be referred to Screening Committee after obtaining the reply of the individual to the show cause notice. If the case is of trivial nature, then in view of the judgment in Avtar Singh versus Union of India, Supreme Court, 2016, the Screening Committee, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 13 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, after ascertaining the suitability of the candidate, may recommend appointment of the candidate, subject to decision of such case. If the case is not of trivial nature then the suitability of the candidate/candidature would be decided by the Screening Committee, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. (E) In cases where the candidate's name has been mentioned in the Column No. 12 i.e. accused person not charge sheeted, then also the matter will be submitted before the Screening Committee for its recommendations.
(F) The details of criminal cases which involve moral turpitude, serious/heinous and gender crime are annexed as Annexure 'A'. (G) Minor offences, minor traffic rule violations and accident cases [not applicable for candidates provisionally selected as Constable (Driver)], shall not be considered as a bar for recruitment in Delhi Police in view of various CAT/court judgments.
(H) If any candidate is released on probation by extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after holding him guilty, his/her case will be examined by the Screening Committee to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police taking into consideration his/her role, gravity of offence and trial court order etc. as per procedure given above. (I) If a candidate was involved in a criminal case, which was withdrawn by the State Government, he/she will generally be considered fit for government service, unless there are other extenuating circumstances which shall be considered by the Screening Committee." ...
Annexure 'A' SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE & OFFENCES UNDER STATE ENACTED ACTS/SPECIAL ACTS CONSIDERING SERIOUS OFFENCES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
1. Indian Penal Code chapter-5(A) Criminal conspiracy, To commit heinous offences Section-120B.
2. Indian penal code chapter-6 Offences against the State Section-121 to 130.
3. Indian penal code chapter-7 Offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air force Section-131 to 134.
4. Indian penal code chapter-8 Offences against Tranquility Section-143-149, 153-A & B. ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 14 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV
5. Indian penal code chapter-11 False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice Sections-193 to 216-A.
6. Indian penal code chapter-12 Offences relating to Coin and Government Stamps Sections-231 to 263-A.
7. Indian penal code chapter-14 Offences relating to Decency & Moral Sections-292 to 294-A.
8. Indian penal code chapter-15 Offences relating to Religion Sections-295 to 297.
9. Indian penal code chapter-16 Offences Affecting the Human Body Sections-302 to 304, 304-B, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 312,313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 347, 348, 354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D,363 to 373, 376 to 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-E,377.
10. Indian penal code chapter-17 Offences against PropertySections-379 to 462.
11. Indian penal code chapter-18 Offences relating to Documents and to Property Marks Sections-465 to 489.
12. Indian penal code chapter-20-A Offences relating to MarriageSections-498-A. In cases relating to marriage i.e. 498-A/406 IPC and dowry prohibition act, the candidate may be debarred if he/she is main accused and not collateral accused. However, if he/she has been committed with 498A IPC then he/she may be debarred.
OFFENCES UNDER STATE ENACTED ACTS/SPECIAL ACTS
1. N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Sections-25, 27 of Arms Act-1959
3. Section-7A of Gambling Act.
4. Section 39, 39-A of Indian Electricity Act.
5. Offences under Factories Act.
6. Offences under Food Adulteration Act.
7. Offences under Official Secret Act-1923.
8. Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 15 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV
10. Offences regarding Terrorist activities.
11. Explosives Act.
12. Offences under ITP and MCOCA.
13. Offences under POCSO Act.
14. All offences prescribing conviction of minimum 3 years and above.
15. Such cases which are registered for abetment and conspiracy to commit above mentioned offences.
16. Any criminal cases made under any of the Acts which are concerned with security and integrity of the country, terrorist and disruptive activities, acts against the state insurgency etc.
17.Preventive detention under the National Security Act/Crime Control Act/any similar legislation and the same is confirmed by the Reviewing Authority.
Note: All special or local Acts where there is a provision of enhanced punishment for subsequent offences. Above list is not exhaustive, Screening Committee shall consider any other cases/provision in any other law which may be relevant to the facts." 6.4. Applying the aforesaid Standing Order to the facts of the present case, it is evident that two FIRs, namely FIR No. 264/2020 dated 21.07.2020 under Sections 498A/323/325/506 IPC, P.S. Khekda, Baghpat and FIR No. 114/2023 dated 01.04.2023 under Sections 323/504/307/354B IPC, P.S. Khekda, Baghpat, were registered against the applicant. A perusal of Annexure 'A' appended to Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 indicates that Sections 498A, 325, 307 and 354B IPC fall within the category of serious offences involving moral turpitude, offences affecting the human body, gender-based offences and offences relating to marriage. 6.5. However, at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the peculiar facts and surrounding circumstances of the present case. It is not in dispute that the applicant had made a full and truthful disclosure regarding both FIRs in the attestation/verification form and there is no allegation of suppression, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 16 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV concealment or misrepresentation on his part. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (supra) and reiterated in Pramod Singh Kirar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (supra), clearly mandates that where a candidate has truthfully disclosed the criminal case and the same arises out of matrimonial discord culminating in acquittal/settlement, the employer is required to consider the overall facts and circumstances in a fair, balanced and reasonable manner rather than mechanically denying appointment merely because an FIR had once been registered.
6.6. In the present case, FIR No. 264/2020 under Sections 498A/323/325/506 IPC admittedly arose out of matrimonial discord between the applicant and his wife. The judgment dated 26.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, which has been reproduced hereinabove, clearly reveals that the complainant-wife as well as her sister categorically denied all allegations of dowry harassment, cruelty, assault or intimidation against the applicant and his family members. Both witnesses stated before the Trial Court that they were living happily in their matrimonial homes and that the injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant were caused due to slipping in the bathroom. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the applicant stood acquitted.
6.7. Though the respondents have attempted to contend that the acquittal was not an "honourable acquittal" since the witnesses turned hostile, such contention cannot be accepted in a narrow or pedantic manner in the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 17 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV peculiar facts of the present case. The judgment of acquittal demonstrates that the substratum of the prosecution case itself collapsed and no incriminating evidence survived against the applicant. The allegations were found unsubstantiated during trial and the prosecution utterly failed to establish any criminal conduct attributable to the applicant. Merely because the complainant and supporting witnesses did not support the allegations arising from a matrimonial dispute, the same cannot automatically lead to an adverse inference regarding the applicant's character or suitability, particularly when there is no finding of guilt recorded by any competent court.
6.8. Equally significant is the fact that in the second FIR No. 114/2023 under Sections 323/504/307/354B IPC, the applicant was admittedly not chargesheeted by the investigating agency and the chargesheet came to be filed only against certain other family members including his brother. The material placed on record reflects that despite investigation, no sufficient evidence was found against the applicant warranting his prosecution. 6.9. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vikram Ruhal vs. Delhi Police & Ors., (supra), assumes considerable significance. The Hon'ble High Court categorically observed that merely being named in an FIR arising out of matrimonial disputes cannot by itself constitute a valid ground to deny public employment. The Hon'ble High Court further noticed the growing tendency of implicating all relatives in matrimonial disputes and cautioned that the employer cannot indefinitely or ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 18 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV mechanically deny appointment solely on the basis of registration of such FIRs.
6.10. The present case stands on an even better footing insofar as the applicant was not only acquitted in the first FIR, but in the second FIR he was not even chargesheeted after investigation. Thus, there exists no adjudicatory finding or prosecutable material establishing involvement of the applicant in the alleged offences. The respondents, while passing the impugned order, appear to have been substantially swayed merely by the gravity of the penal provisions mentioned in the FIRs, without adequately evaluating the ultimate outcome of the proceedings, the nature of evidence, the matrimonial background of the dispute and the absence of any proven criminal conduct on the part of the applicant. 6.11. We are conscious of the settled proposition that recruitment to a disciplined force like Delhi Police requires a higher standard of scrutiny regarding antecedents and suitability. At the same time, such scrutiny cannot translate into arbitrary exclusion or presumption of guilt despite acquittal/exoneration. The object of verification of antecedents is to assess actual suitability and not to punish an individual merely because he once faced allegations in a private matrimonial dispute which ultimately did not culminate into proof of criminality.
6.12. The respondents were therefore required to apply a more nuanced and objective approach while considering the applicant's case. Unfortunately, the Screening Committee, while declaring the applicant "Not Recommended", failed to properly appreciate that: (i) the applicant had ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 19 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV made truthful disclosure; (ii) the first criminal case resulted in acquittal after complete failure of prosecution evidence; (iii) the second FIR did not culminate into filing of chargesheet against the applicant; and (iv) both cases arose out of matrimonial discord. The impugned decision, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and disproportionate emphasis upon mere registration of FIRs rather than the actual outcome and circumstances.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion and applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Singh Kirar (supra) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vikram Ruhal (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 as well as show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 cannot be sustained in law. The same are accordingly quashed and set aside.
7.2. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police, if otherwise eligible and meritorious, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.3. The applicant shall also be entitled to consequential benefits including notional seniority from the date persons lower in merit were appointed.
However, monetary benefits shall be admissible only from the date of actual joining.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAK 15 10:39:18 LANI +05'30' 20 Item No. 64 O.A. No. 34/2025 Court No. IV 7.4. The O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 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.
SAK 15
10:39:18
LANI +05'30'