Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rishabh Maan vs Delhi Police on 20 November, 2025
1
Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 47/2025
Reserved on: 0
06.11.2025
Pronounced on: 20.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati,
Khati, Member (A)
Rishabh Maan
Roll No. 2201346838
Recruit HC (Min.) in Delhi Police
Aged about 26 years
S/o Sh. Sanjay Maan
R/o House No. 335,
Mundka Village,
Delhi - 110041
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chairman, Screening Committee
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001.
3. DCP (Recruitment)
NPL, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi - 110009.
...Respondents
(By Advocate
dvocates:: Mr. L. C. Singhi, Ms. Purnima Maheshwari)
2
Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i)
(i) To call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the impugned SCN dt. 21.03.2024 & Order dt.
09.12.2024 and proceedings of Screening Committee on the basis of which impugned orders were passed and direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of HC (Min.) with all consequential benefits including seniority/pro seniority/promotion and arrears of pay since the applicant is still unemployed.
(ii) To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.
case."
2. The brief facts facts of the case as narrated by the lear learned counsel for the applicant are as under:
2.1. The present case arises from the cancellation of th the candidature of the applicant for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in Delhi Police. The respondents have cancelled his selection on the ground of his past involvement in two criminal cases, despite his complete acquittal in both.
both. The impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 21.03.2024, Order dated 09.12.2024, and the 3 Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 proceedings of the Screening Committee are u under challenge on the basis that the same are arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the applicant's rights. 2.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had applied for recruitment to the post of HC (Min.) in Delhi Police under Recruitment-2022.
Recruitment 2. He disclosed in his application form the the details of two criminal cases, FIR No. 80/2017, P.S. Mundka, and and FIR No. 4/2019, P.S. Nangloi, both of which resulted in his acquittal vide judgments dated 04.07.2019 and 03.07.2024 respectively. The relevant portions portions of the said judgments read as under:
Judgment dated 04.07.2019 "Judgment It is submitted by the complainant/victim/injured that he has voluntarily settled the matter with the accused before Delhi Mediation Centre, vide mediation No. 4842/19/Ex. P1 and is no more interested in prosecuting the accused and seeks permission of the Court to compound the offence punishable under Section 323/341/34 IPC.
Heard. File perused.
I have examined the victim about his voluntariness and having examined him, I am satisfied that he is making statement voluntarily. Therefore, let his statement to this effect be recorded separately. Statements recorded.
File perused. Perusal of the file reveals that accused is sent to face trial for the offences punishable under sections 323/341/34 323/34 IPC.4
Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 Section 323 IPC is compoundable within the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the person to whom hurt is caused while section 341 IPC is compoundable by the person restrained. in Therefore, view of statement of complainant/victim/injured, accused Rishab stands complainant/victim/injured, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 323/341/34 IPC."
Judgment dated 03.07.2024 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly stated, accused Rishabh Maan was sent to face trial with the allegations that on 08 08.05.2019, at about 02:15 PM, at MRS Mundka Parking, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Nangloi Metro, accused Rishabh Maan obstructed public servants Ct. Jaiveer and CL. Sandeep, caused grievous hurt to Ct. Jaiveer, simple hurt to Ct.
Sandeep to deter them for for discharging their duties as public servants and also assaulted them while they were on PCR Duty and thereby, it has been alleged that accused has committed an offence under Section 186/332/353/325/323 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
"IP
2. Investigation was carried out and upon completion, the instant charge-sheet charge sheet alleging an offence punishable under Section 186/332/353/325/323 of IPC was filed against the accused. Thereafter, cognizance for offence under Section 186/332/353/325/323 of IPC was taken and the accused was summoned.
3. Upon appearance of accused, copy of charge sheet and annexed documents was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") CHARGE
4. Prima facie case was made out against the accused and charge for an offence punishable under Section 186/332/353/325/323 of IPC was framed against the accused Rishabh Maan to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was then li listed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.5
Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025
5. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined three witnesses, out of which complainant Ct. Jaiveer and Ct. Sandeep are the sole eye witness/injured to the incident and all othe eye-witness/injured other witnesses are either police witnesses or formal witnesses. Complainant, Ct. Jaiveer, and eye eye-witness/injured Ct. Sandeep are the star witness for the prosecution and therefore, their testimony is being discussed foremost.
6. Complainant, Ct. Jaiveer, wa was examined as PW-1 and injured/eye witness Ct. Sandeep was examined as PW injured/eye-witness PW-2 and it is pertinent to mention here that both the eye eye-
witnesses/injured have failed to identify the accused as the person who obstructed them, caused injuries upon them and assaulted assaulted them while they were on duty as public officials.
7. Both the eye-witnesses eye witnesses and injured to the incident examined by the prosecution have turned hostile and have failed to identify the accused in Court and therefore, testimony of other witnesses examine examined by the prosecution is not being discussed as all other witnesses are either police witnesses or formal witnesses and they were not ocular witnesses who could prove the identity and involvement of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
8. As per the list of witnesses filed by the prosecution, there was no other eye witness to the incident, except complainant Ct. Jaiveer and injured Ct. Sandeep, who could have deposed against the accused and prove the identity and involvement of the accused in the present matter beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, continuing matter the trial would have been a futile exercise as allegations against accused under Section 186/332/353/325/323 of IPC could not have been proved by the testimony of any of remaining witnesses. Accordingly, PE was closed.
9. Since no incriminating evidence came against the accused and therefore, his statement U/s. 313 Cr.PC read with Section 281 Cr.PC was dispensed with.
10. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the case of prosec prosecution appears to be 6 Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused persons.
12.In the present case, it was sine qua non for prosecution to prove that the accused, namely, Rishabh Mann obstructed, assaulted and caucaused injuries to Ct. Jaiveer and Ct. Sandeep to deter them from performing their duties as public officials.
13.In order to prove the same, it was utmost imperative and necessary that complainant Ct. Jaiveer and injured Ct. Sandeep identify the accused as the person who has obstructed, assaulted and caused injuries to them. However, in view of the facts of the present case, it is quite clear that not a scintilla has come on the record against the accused as the complainant and eye witness/injured, i.e., Ct. Jaiveer and Ct. Sandeep have turned hostile and have failed to identify the accused before this Court.
14.All the remaining witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the list of witnesses filed by prosecution were either police officials or formal wit witnesses, they were not ocular witnesses and could not have proved the culpability of accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, no purpose would have been served by examining the remaining witnesses. Reliance has been placed upon case titled as Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that:
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
15. Similar view has also been taken in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr., 1996 JCC 507 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"in a case where, there is no prosp prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of Court 7 Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date.
16.Hence, in view of the above said discussi discussion, accused Rishabh Maan s/o Sh. Sanjay Maan is hereby acquitted for commission of offence under Section 186/332/353/325/323 of IPC."
2.3. Despite full disclosure and his provisional selection after clearing all stages of the recruitment process, the respondents ondents issued the aforesaid SCN and subsequently cancelled his candidature, allegedly based on the recommendations of the Screening Committee. 2.4. Learned counsel contended that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law as mere involvement in criminal cases cannot be a bar to appointment appointment after acquittal and thus the he decision of the Screening Committee is arbitrary arbitrary.
Learned counsel further contended that the action of the respondents violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice justice, as an acquittal wipes out all stigma attached to to previous allegation allegations.
Learned counsel placed reliance reliance upon several judicial pronouncements including Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, Kumar Civil Appeal No. 1430 of 2007, decided 8 Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 .2011 (SC); Joginder Singh v. Union of India on 17.03.2011 India, (2014) 3 SCT 641 (Del); Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana,, (1996) 4 SCC 17; State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Lal AIR 1992 SC 604; and State of M.P. v.
Ramashankar Raghuvanshi
Raghuvanshi, 1983 SCC (L&S) 263
263,
wherein it has been held that an acquittal, even on the basis of compromise or for want of evidence, cannot be a ground to deny public employment.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the applicant's candidature for the postt of Head Constable (Ministerial) was rightly cancelled after due consideration by the Screening Committee in accordance with Stand Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022. It was submitted that though the applicant was provisionally selected after qualifying all stages of recruitment, his appointment was subject to verification of character and antecedents, antecedents, wherein two criminal cases, FIR No. 80/2017 (PS Mundka) and FIR No. 04/2019 (PS Nangloi Metro), were found registered against him. 9
Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 3.1. Learned counsel further subm submitted that both the aforesaid said cases involved assault, indicating a violent and indisciplined tendency inconsistent with the standards of conduct expected from a member of a disciplined force like the Delhi Police. The Screening Committee, after examining the FIRs, court judgments, and the applicant's reply to the show-cause cause notice, observed that the acquittals were not honourable, being based on compromise and witnesses turning hostile. Accordingly, the Committee found the applicant unsuitable for appointment in a law-enforcing agency.
3.2. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Methu Meda, Meda (2022) 1 SCC 1; Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Mehar Singh, Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685; and Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Shani Kumar Kumar, (2013) 11 SCC 163, wherein it has been held that a Screening Committee can deny appointment even after acquittal if the nature and gravity of the offence reflect doubtful integrity or unsuitability bility for police service. It was thus submitted that the impugned action is legal, justified, and in 10 Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 conformity with the Standing Orders and judicial precedents, and the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been honourably acquitted in all criminal proceedings, which clearly establishes his suitability for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial), a post involving purely clerical duties and no law-and-order law order responsibilities as defined under Rule 4 of the DP (P&C) Rules. The learned counsel for the applicant further relied up upon several judicial precedents to contend that once the applicant has been acquitted of criminal charges, there ere exists no ground with the respondents to deny or disqualify him from appointment appointment.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. 11
Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present case is s whether the applicant, who has been fully acquitted in the criminal cases disclosed by him at the time of recruitment, could be denied appointment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) on the basi basis of such past involvement.
6.2. It is not in dispute that the applicant h had duly disclosed both the FIRs No. 80/2017 (P.S. Mundka) and No. o. 04/2019 (P.S. Nangloi Metro), in his application form, and that both the cases have culminated in acquittal vide judgments dated 04.07.2019 and 03.07.2024 respectively. It is also not disputed that the applicant successfully cleared all stages of the selection process conducted under Recruitment 2022 and was provisionally selected, subject Recruitment-2022 to verification of character and antecedents. 6.3. The sole basis for for cancellation of the applicant's candidature is the opinion of the Screening Committee that his acquittals were "not honourable," having been based on compromise or witnesses turning hostile, and that the 12 Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 nature of the offences indicated violent b behaviour. However, it is to be noted that neither of the two FIRs resulted in conviction; the applicant stands acquitted by competent criminal courts, and no adverse material has been placed on record to show any subsisting criminality or moral turpitude.
6.4. We further observe that the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) is essentially of a clerical and administrative nature, involving maintenance of records, correspondence, and office management, and does not entail direct policing or field law-and-order law duties.. Therefore, the apprehension of indiscipline or violent tendency, as suggested by the respondents, appears misplaced in the context of the nature of duties attached to the post. 6.5. The law on this issue has been succinctly laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union Un of India,, (2016) 8 SCC 471, that each case must be examined on its own facts and that acquittal, particularly in trivial or false cases, should ordinarily enure to the benefit of the candidate. 13
Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 6.6. Similarly, in Vikas Nagar v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 13913/2024, Delhi High Court], the Hon'ble Court held that a candidate cannot be made to suffer loss of employment opportunity solely on account of pendency or past criminal proceedings when the same have resulted in acquittal. Relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"2. While we are cognizant of the position in law that normally the courts would be circumspect in interfering with the opinion of the employer/screening committee in matters of judging the suitability of a candidate for appointment, we are unable to agree with the findings appointment, and the opinion of the Screening Committee in the present case.
3. In the present case, as has been noted in our Order dated 03.10.2024, the criminal case has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute between the pe petitioner and his wife. The proceedings in the said criminal case have been stayed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide its Order dated 23.02.2024 referred hereinabove. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer a punishment when the criminal case is yet to be adjudicated. We do not need to emphasise that in the matters of public employment, the opportunity does not come repeatedly and may never come for the petitioner again. The petitioner has been successful in obtaining the employment with the CISF CISF based on his own merit and qualification. In case, the petitioner is not allowed to join, subject to the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner may lose this opportunity for all times to come and this loss would never be compensated. On the othe other hand, in case he is eventually found guilty, the balance can be struck by making his appointment subject to the outcome of the criminal case and, in that event, directing that he would be terminated from service without any notice or following the rigours rigours of an inquiry.
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 14 Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 the post of Constable DCPO in the CISF subject to the outcome of the criminalcriminal 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860, and pending before the Competent Court at Sambhal. In case the petitioner is 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 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.
5. The petition petition is disposed of in the above terms.
terms."
6.7. The he judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are clearly distinguishable from the present case, as those pertained to situations where the nature of offences or the conduct of the candidates disclosed elements of serious moral turpitude or habitual criminal tendencies. In contrast, there is nothing on record in the present matter to suggest that the applicant's conduct falls within such a category. Further it is also a fact that the t acquittals, duly recorded by competent criminal inal courts, stand unchallenged.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the above discussion and, particularly, in light of the fact that both the criminal cases against the 15 Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 applicant have culminated in acquittal, the very basis for cancelling his candidature no longer exists. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 2103.204 and 09.12.2024 and proceedings of Screening Committee on the basis of which the impugned orders were passed.
passed 7.2. The he criminal proceedings having ended in acquittal, and no adverse material being placed on record by the respondents, now there remains no legal or moral impediment to the applicant's appointment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). Accordingly, tthe respondents are directed to permit the applicant to join the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in terms of his selection under Recruitment 2022, within a period of four weeks from the Recruitment-2022, date of receipt of this order, and to grant all consequential benefits as admissible in law.
7.3. We make it clear that if the aforesaid judgments of acquittal are reversed in appeal in future, the respondents shall be free to take appropriate action as per law. 16
Item No. 94 (C-4) O.A. No. 47/2025 7.4.. The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the above terms. Pending Pendin M.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.
(Anand S. Khati)
Khati (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/