Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nikhil Kumar vs Home Affairs on 27 January, 2026
1
Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 171/2025
This the 27th day of January, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Nikhil Kumar
Age 26 years
S/o Shri Mempal Singh,
R/o Village Niyamatpur,
Post Banhera Khas,
Sultanpur,
Uttar Pradesh-247554
...Applicant
By Advocate(s): Mr. Sachin Chauhan
Versus
1. Union of India
Through The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
NDCC-II Building,
Jai Singh Road,
Near Jantar Mantar,
New Delhi-110 001
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi.
3. The Addl. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment, New Police Lines,
SHILPI
SHILPI
GUPTA Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009
2026.02.02
GUPTA
10:32:45
+01'00' 4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment, New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009
...Respondents
By Advocate(s): Mr. Hilal Haider
2
Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the instant O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8. (1) To set aside the SCN and impugned order dated 29.03.2022, 31.10.2022 and 03.12.2024 and to further direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.
and/ or Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is aggrieved of the show cause notice dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure-A/1) impugned herein, which reads as under:-
"It is stated that you candidate, Nikhil Kumar [Roll No.2006004095] applied for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police Examination-2020 and declared selected provisionally; subject to satisfactory verification of character & antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents etc. Scrutiny of records revealed that you were involved in case FIR No.532 u/s. 188/269/270 IPC, PS/Devband (UP) and disclosed the facts about your involvement in the relevant column of Attestation Form filled up by you on 12.01.2022.
SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA As such, you are hereby called upon to show cause as 2026.02.02 GUPTA 10:32:45 to why your candidature for the post of constable (Exe.) +01'00' Male in-Delhi Police (2020J should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned above. Your reply, if any, should reach this office within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defense and your candidature will be decided ex-parte on its merit and no further correspondence will be entertained, in this regard."
3 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025Court No. IV 2.1. Vide impugned order dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure-
A/2) the result of the applicant has been kept at abeyance till the final execution of the criminal case.
2.3. Further the latest position has been apprise by the applicant by a representation dated 20.11.2024 for seeking a joining, pursuant to which an interim order dated 03.12.2024 (Annexure-A/4) has been passed by the respondents which is on the same lines as passed earlier. The said order dated 03.12.2024, reads as under:-
"Subject: Recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police-2020.
[Held-in-abeyance case] regarding. Please refer to your application-cum-representation dated 20.11.2024 for joining, Delhi Police as Constable (Exe.).
Your case regarding involvement in FIR No.532/2020 dated 02.08.2020 u/s.
147/148/149/332/353/504/188/269/270 IPC & 51 Disaster Mang. Act-20S, PS/Devband (UP) has been examined by Screening Committee in its Meeting and decided that your candidature for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police Examination-2020 may be kept-in-abeyance till the final decision of the Hon'ble Court in the above said case.
As such you are hereby directed to submit the copy of final Judgment/Order in the above said criminal case SHILPI GUPTA as & when the same is finalized by the Hon'ble Court. SHILPI 2026.02.02 GUPTA 10:32:45 This issues with the approval of Commissioner of +01'00' Police/Delhi."
2.4. He draws attention to the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (C.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Deoband, Saharanpur, in Case No. 2837/2021 in FIR No.-
4 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025Court No. IV 532/2020 Section 147,148,149,332,353,504,188,269, 270 IPC and 51 Disaster Management Act Police Station-
Deoband District- Saharanpur. He would highlight the following observations of the said order dated 09.01.2024:-
"it was found that Mehak Singh son of Rishipal and Rishipal son of Kantu had died and Nikhil son of Mainpal was not found present at the scene, due to which the name of Nikhil son of Mainpal resident of Niyamatpur police station Devband district Saharanpur is deleted from the above case."
2.5. In rejoinder to the counter affidavit learned counsel for the applicant has filed current status of the criminal case pending, in following manner:-
Question Answer
1- In case no. 532/2020 case no. No
2837/2021, Nibin has been made an
accused by the Police Department,
Deoband.
2- Whether the above mentioned case No. No
532/202048-147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 504, 188, 279, 270 and 51 of Disaster Act has been decided by the above mentioned Hon'ble Court against Nikhil.
3- Whether any action is pending in the No above Nikhil 2.6. In support of his case, learned counsel for the SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.02 applicant places reliance on the decision rendered by the GUPTA 10:32:45 +01'00' Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 5718/2023, decided on 31.05.2023 titled as Vikram Ruhal Vs. Delhi Police & Ors., wherein following observations have been made:-
5 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025Court No. IV "16. Having said so, it may be observed that the Standing Order No. 398/2018 dated October 18, 2018 of the respondents does provide for a policy for deciding cases of provisionally selected candidates in Delhi Police who have disclosed their involvement in criminal cases/acquittal/discharge etc. However, mere possibility of being summoned after filing of chargesheet, when the petitioner has been placed in Column 12 of charge sheet, has no legal foundation for withholding the appointment, specially in matrimonial offences under Sections 498-A/406 IPC. The petitioner appears to have already suffered ignominy due to registration of FIR and also the appointment stands deferred despite the investigation pointing to his innocence. Criminal trials are generally long and protracted and appointment in such a case should not have been ordinarily deferred for an indefinite period till the conclusion of trial, despite the findings in the investigation being in favour of the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner is better placed than the cases involving trial as an accused, wherein after summoning, the proceedings need to be evaluated on the yardstick of honourable acquittal, technical acquittal or if the benefit of doubt has been extended to accused. Unfortunately, in the present case, the learned Tribunal misdirected itself by assuming that the petitioner could be summoned having being placed in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet or may be summoned under Section 319 Cr.PC during the course of trial.
The proposition of law as referred by the learned Tribunal in SWIL Ltd. vs. State of Delhi & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 670, Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam (2020) 2 SCC 217, Nahar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in C.A. 443/2002 (arising out of petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8447/2015) decided on March 16, 2022, Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar Civil Appeal No.4960/2021 on decided on August 25, 2021 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 195/2022 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6545/2020), is undisputed and needs no deliberations.
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 SHILPI case and on the basis of the evidence on record, did not SHILPI GUPTA deem it appropriate to summon the petitioner. If the 2026.02.02 GUPTA 10:32:45 petitioner whose name is placed in Column No. 12 had +01'00' 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 6 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025 Court No. IV offence for which he could be tried together with other accused.
17. Considering that the petitioner had been placed in Column No. 12 of charge-sheet and the fact that evidence did not establish his involvement in aforesaid offences after investigation, he should have been logically considered suitable for appointment. Merely being named in the FIR cannot be treated as an impediment for public appointment, unless the involvement is substantiated on investigation, specially in relation to matrimonial offences.
The Competent Authority as well as the learned Tribunal appear to have ignored the fact that there is a growing tendency amongst the women to rope in all the relatives including minors in case an FIR is lodged with reference to matrimonial disputes. Many of such complaints are eventually either settled between the families/spouses and are later on stated to have been filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. The abuse of the aforesaid provision has been substantially noticed though the salutary purpose of the enactment cannot be ignored in any manner. Merely naming in the FIR does not lead to an inference that the employer can keep in abeyance the employment of an applicant for an indefinite period, even if the applicant has been placed in column No. 12 of the charge-sheet and has not been summoned.
18. In the facts and circumstances, the Competent Authority as well as the learned Tribunal, failed to consider the facts and circumstances in a correct perspective and were merely swept by the factum of the petitioner being named in the FIR. There is nothing else on record to reflect that the antecedents of the petitioner disqualify him in any manner for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe) in Delhi Police. It is difficult to presume that the petitioner would be a threat to the discipline of Police Force merely on account of registration of the aforesaid FIR wherein he has even not been summoned.
19. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to agree with the reasons accorded by the learned Tribunal declining the relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated September 11, 2020 and December 02, 2020 passed by the respondents along SHILPI with the impugned order dated February 20, 2023 SHILPI GUPTA passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 45/2021 deferring 2026.02.02 GUPTA 10:32:45 the consideration of appointment of petitioner till +01'00' 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.
7 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025Court No. IV
20. Petition accordingly stands allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. He would submit that the candidature of the applicant has been withheld not rejected as such.
3.1. He submits that the decision has been taken in consonance with the standing order No. 398/18 now S.O. No. HRD/12/2022 which provides for policy for deciding cases of provisionally selected candidates in Delhi Police, who have disclosed their involvement in Criminal Cases/ Acquittal/Discharge etc. or concealed the same while furnishing information in Attestation Form for the purpose of verification of Character & Antecedents. He states that the respondent department acted according to provisions enshrined in S.O. No. 398/ 18 now HRD/ 12/2022 and issued Show Cause Notice for the cancellation of candidature before final decision SHILPI GUPTA in the matter. The reply of the applicant was sent to PHQ SHILPI 2026.02.02 GUPTA 10:32:45 +01'00' to assess the suitability for appointment in Delhi Police by the Screening Committee. The Screening committee observed that Nikhil Kumar (candidate) along-with other accused attacked on the (Police party) performing law & order duty during COVID-19 lockdown. The applicant 8 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025 Court No. IV along-with other co-accused persons was charge-sheeted u/s 147/148/149/332/353/504/188/269/270 IPC & 51 Disaster Management Act, 2005.
3.2. He further submits that a Supplementary Charge sheet dated 09.01.2024 regarding removal of name of the candidate is yet to be considered by the learned trial court. Court has already taken cognizance on previous charge sheet. Further, proceedings of case are pending.
Therefore, the Screening Committee is of the view that the candidature of the applicant is kept pending till the final outcome of the case before the Learned Trial Court.
According to Standing Order No: 398/18 now S.O. No. HRD/ 12/2022.
3.3. He also highlights the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Mehar Singh, Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar, 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 SHILPI GUPTA antecedents and examine whether candidate is suitable SHILPI 2026.02.02 GUPTA 10:32:45 +01'00' for appointment to the post in Delhi Police. The decision of the Screening Committee is reasoned and logical in nature. Hence, the candidature of the applicant is withheld.
9 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025Court No. IV
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
5. In the instant O.A. the case of the applicant has to be examined case to case basis. The committee ought to have applied its mind within the parameter of S.O. no.
HRD/12/2022. In given situation there is category of observation made by the learned Court of Competent Jurisdiction that the applicant was not found present at the scene of offence, due to which the name of the applicant is deleted from the array of party. Even though the criminal trial standing since the Learned Court of Competent Jurisdiction has released the applicant from charges.
6. We agree with the preposition highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant in Vikram Ruhal (supra). Present case is only relates to withholding of the joining of the applicant which cannot be considered as an impediment.
7. We also observe that recently Hon'ble High Court of SHILPI GUPTA Delhi in identical situation in W.P. No. 13913/2024 SHILPI 2026.02.02 GUPTA 10:32:45 +01'00' decided on 14.11.2024 titled as Vikas Nagar Vs. Union of India and Ors. has held as under:-
"4. We, therefore, dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned letter dated 03.09.2024, issued by respondent no.2. The petitioner shall be allowed to join the post of Constable DCPO in the CISF subject to the outcome of the criminal case, that is, Case No.6431/2023 arising out of the FIR No.322/2023 10 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 171/2025 Court No. IV 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."
8. Based on the aforesaid preposition of Hon'ble High Court in para 4 of Vikas Nagar (supra), the impugned action of the respondents of withholding the joining of the applicant is liable to be quashed and set aside. The applicant shall be allowed to join the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, if he is otherwise found fit and eligible.
9. Accordingly, the present Original Application is allowed in aforesaid terms. Associated M.As, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
SHILPI (Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
SHILPI
GUPTA
2026.02.02
Member (A) Member (J)
GUPTA
10:32:45
+01'00' /SG/