Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mohan Kumar vs Union Of India on 25 February, 2026
1
Item No. 77 O.A. No. 67/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 67/2025
This the 25th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Mohan Kumar
S/o Sh. Sher Singh
R/o VPO-Palka,
Tehsil - Sikri,
District - Deeg,
Rajasthan,
Pincode -321024
(Aged about 35 years)
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police)
...Applicant
(By Advocate(s): 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
SHILPISHILPI
GUPTA ....Respondents
GUPT 2026.03.09
17:51:58
A +05'30' (By Advocate(s): Mr. Ashish Singh)
2
Item No. 77 O.A. No. 67/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) The present Original Application is being filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereby the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
"(a) quash and set aside impugned order dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure A/1) alongwith impugned show cause notice dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure A/2) 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. Learned counsel for the applicant, while highlighting the facts of the present case, submits that the applicant had been working as a regular Conductor in the Jaipur City Transport Service Ltd. under the State of Rajasthan. 2.1. He would submit that he lodged an FIR No. 551/15 on 23.11.2015, u/S 143, 332, 353, 341, 379, 427 of IPC, against which a cross FIR No. 553/15 was registered on the same date u/S 323/341/354/506 of IPC against him, which was a counterblast. He discloses his SHILPISHILPI GUPTA particulars in the attestation form. GUPT 2026.03.09 17:51:58 2.2. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention A +05'30' to Form 111, in FIR No 551/15, wherein the following 3 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 67/2025 Court No. IV has been recorded on 04.01.2016, by Competent Court of Jurisdiction:-
"Advocate Vajendra Bainslya was also present along with accused Neeraj and Akash.
Statements of witnesses Mohan Kumar PW1 and Sarla PW2 were recorded. Complainant Mohan Kumar presented an application for voluntary compromise under Section 341 IPC in the Lok Adalat. Complainant was identified by Advocate Rajesh Banker. Compromise u/s 341 IPC was taken separately. Files are included.
Therefore, the accused are declared acquitted by compromise under Section 341 IPC under the alleged offence. Only charges under Sections 353 and 352 IPC remain in the case of the accused. On the basis of the statements of the complainant, it does not appear to be in the interest of justice to exclude the remaining witnesses, hence prosecution with the remaining witnesses is declared closed. Statement of the accused will appear on 08.01.16 for the file.
"illegible"
The final arguments were heard and the decision was pronounced in open court in writing, according to the judge, the accused Akash Raj son of Kaushal Kishore Singh, caste Kayastha, age 19 years, resident near Hanuman temple, Chowk, police station Gauda, Neeraj son of Dinesh Prasad, caste Gupta, resident of Jalalpur, student of B rank fourth year College II, Kiku Kukas, police station Amer, Jaipur, are acquitted in the absence of any evidence in the crime under section 332, 353 IPC, and the accused in Bharuch, Ranchi, have been declared not guilty in the crime under section 341 IPC. The accused are acquitted for appearing alone in the court for the period of bail of Rs. 5000 under section 437 CrPC, as per the order, the file included in the bail application should be included in the bail application.
"illegible""
In the FIR No. 553/15 on 07.01.2016 the following has been recorded, by the competent Court of jurisdiction:-
SHILPISHILPI GUPTA "illegible" Mohan Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Weaver, GUPT 2026.03.09 have the presence of the vehicle, the statement of PWI was 17:51:58 recorded, the complainant Deepika Neeraj & Akash Raj, in A +05'30' the spirit of Lok Adalat, presented an application for protection compromise, the application was identified by Advocate Shri Rajendra Faisla, the application was included in the tehsil as per the friend tradition, hence the 4 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 67/2025 Court No. IV accused Mohan Kumar, son of Sher Singh, caste Rajput, resident of village Palika, Tehsil Nagar, District Bharatpur, currently conductor, Roadways, Jaipur, is declared acquitted under the charged crime under Section 341, 323 IPC named "illegible" "illegible""
2.3. He states that a settlement was arrived at in the present matter and, therefore, both the FIR proceedings were closed.
2.4. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the charge sheet. He submits that the FIR was registered under various offences as quoted hereinabove. However, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 323 and 341 only. He states that the Screening Committee did not take into consideration the said aspect while rejecting the candidature of the applicant for selection to the post of Constable Driver (Male) and not considered the fact that the acquittal is an "honorable acquitted". Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Union of India v. Methu Meda (2022 1 SCC 1), which permits the Screening Committee to assess the nature of involvement and criminal propensity notwithstanding acquittal. 2.5. He further impugns that the observations made in SHILPISHILPI GUPTA GUPT 2026.03.09 the impugned order shows the premeditated tendency to 17:51:58 A +05'30' indulge in crime without fear of law which is perverse and illegal. It has been further held against the 5 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 67/2025 Court No. IV applicant that candidate who has no respect for a woman cannot be appointed in a law enforcing and disciplined force. The Screening Committee has also not consider the aspect of the cross FIR against the applicant.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. He submits that a holistic view has been taken based upon the Standing Order No. 12/2022, whereby an opportunity of show cause notice was given. The competent authority i.e. the Screening Committee was not satisfied with the justification given by the applicant and, taking note of the FIR, the nature of gravity involved and offences thereto, did not recommend the candidature of the applicant suitable for appointment in the disciplined force.
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents would relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 6191/2025 in the matter of Srikanta Gorain Vs. Union of India and Ors. decided on 14.10.2025. He highlights as under:-
"80. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which followed, were concluded on the basis of a compromise following a settlement between the SHILPISHILPI GUPTA petitioner and the complainant. This is apparent from GUPT 2026.03.09 the following passages from the judgment dated 19 17:51:58 November 2024 of the JMFC:
A +05'30' "09. Thus, the public prosecutor conducted a thorough cross examination of the prosecutor as he did not assist the prosecution. On the contrary during cross- examination she denied that at the time of the 6 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 67/2025 Court No. IV incident, the complainant had taken away the mobile phone of the accused so as not to contact her & the accused had twist her right hand and threatened her with suicide. On the other hand, the complainant admitted during her cross-examination that the accused & she had settled out of court.
10. In support of the settlement reached, the Complainant & accused filed compromise pursis on Exh 22, in view that the complainant has complete denial of the incident in her evidence & the compromised on the record, the further evidence of the prosecution was closed as per the above order on Exh 1.
11. As the complainant examined by the prosecution did not give any supporting evidence to the prosecution story. It is not proved that the accused had follow her & twist her hand and threatened her with suicide at time of incident. On the other hand, it appears from the evidence of the prosecution that he did not assist the prosecution as there was an out of court settlement between him and accused.
Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. For I issue no 1 to 3answering negative & passing the following order in reply to Order
1) Accused Ankush Nandkishor Raut is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 354-A, 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 248(1) of the Penal Code.
2) The bail and bond of the accused shall be cancelled.
3) The accused shall furnish competent and fresh bail under Section 437-A of the code of Criminal Procedure."
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case, in the present context, no doubt the offences involved are fall within the scope and ambit of the Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 SHILPISHILPI GUPTA issued by the Delhi Police, which has been contended by GUPT 2026.03.09 17:51:58 the learned counsel for the respondents. However, the A +05'30' apprehension of the criminal trial and factum of the 7 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 67/2025 Court No. IV nature of the offence has not been looked into in the present matter. The order has been passed by the competent authority, i.e., Screening Committee, on the premises of an FIR filed under various sections. Ignoring the basic fact which has been brought on record that the applicant was charge sheeted for only two sections i.e. u/S 323 and 341 and not u/S 354.
4.2. Furthermore, it is also important to note the it has been establish on record that in the present case a cross FIR was also lodged on the same date, but was prior in time as reflected by FIR No. 553/15 u/S 323/341/354/506 of IPC. The respondents ought to have taken a holistic view in the matter and arrive at a just decision.
4.3. Further, the observations made in the order itself shows premeditated tendency to indulge in crime without fear of law is without any substantial evidence. In fact giving a character certificate to the applicant that the applicant has been indulging in a premeditated tendency to indulge in a crime, ignoring the fact that the applicant is working as a conductor, involving a public duty, where SHILPISHILPI GUPTA such kind of quarrel takes place and cross FIR's are GUPT 2026.03.09 lodged. Furthermore, the observation also to the effect 17:51:58 A +05'30' that the applicant has been charge sheeted and involved in assault of criminal and without losing his modesty is 8 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 67/2025 Court No. IV also based on merely submissives and conjunctions without any evidence and support to that effect. 4.4. The assessment arrived by the Screening Committee as contended by the respondents viz. a viz. the case laws relied upon by the respondents is no doubt vested in the discretion of executive domain. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said discretion has to be judicially exercised on the touch stone of the facts available and the criminal trial pending thereto. There cannot be stay captive formula to arrive at such conclusion which may affect the career prospects of the applicant. More so the fact of the present case also shows that the applicant had already been working as a Conductor in the Jaipur City Transport Service Ltd. Under the State of Rajasthan, which is an autonomous body of the Government, therefore the contention of the respondents counsel is declined.
5. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to the quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue offer of appointment to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a SHILPISHILPI GUPTA certified copy of this order. Consequential relief thereto, if GUPT 2026.03.09 any, shall also follow.
17:51:58 A +05'30' 9 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 67/2025 Court No. IV
6. Accordingly, the present O.A. is disposed of in above terms. Pending M.As, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/
SHILPISHILPI
GUPTA
GUPT 2026.03.09
17:51:58
A +05'30'