Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dheeraj Kumar vs Delhi Police on 13 February, 2026
1
Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 770/2025
Reserved on :- 10.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 13.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Dheeraj Kumar
S/o Sh. Laukendra Singh
R/o Village - Ghanghauli,
Post - Jaidpura, Tehsil-Khair,
District - Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh - 202165
(Aged about 22 years)
(Candidate to the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male) in Delhi
Police)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: 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
SHILPI GUPTA (By Advocates: Ms. Ring Baliyan for
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13
15:18:47+09'00'
Ms. Sunanda Shukla)
2
Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
By way of the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) quash and set aside impugned order dated
05.l2.2024 (Annexure A/l) alongwith impugned show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure A/2) and;
(b) direct the respondents to forthwith further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male) 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 pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2023 for recruitment to the post of Constable (Exe.) (Male) in Delhi Police, the applicant, belonging to the EWS category, duly participated in the selection process, secured merit under Roll No. 3002002291 and stands as a selectee; however, his candidature has been kept pending vide impugned order dated 05.12.2024, issued on the basis of a show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 arising out of FIR No. 227/2022 dated 17.06.2022 registered at P.S. SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 15:18:47+09'00' Tappal, Aligarh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 341, 427, 336, 436, 333, 120-B IPC, Sections 2 & 7 3 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. 2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the said FIR pertains to an alleged public demonstration in connection with the 'Agniveer' issue, wherein hundreds of persons were implicated, and the applicant's name was wrongly mentioned therein. However, upon thorough investigation and scrutiny of the statements of witnesses, the complainant, CDR and other material collected during the investigation, it was categorically found that the applicant had been falsely implicated and was not involved in the alleged incident it was a case of mistaken identity. Consequently, while the police filed a chargesheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction against only 70 accused persons, the applicant was neither chargesheeted nor placed in Column No. 16 as an accused sent for trial.
2.2. Learned counsel contended that the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 03.08.2024, has taken cognizance of the offences and summoned only the chargesheeted accused, and charges have since been SHILPI GUPTA framed against those accused persons, whereas no SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 15:18:47+09'00' charges have been framed against the applicant, clearly establishing that he was not sent up for trial and that 4 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV the chargesheet, as filed, stands accepted without any allegation surviving against him. Thus, there is admittedly no criminal case pending against the applicant and he is not facing trial;yet, the respondents have arbitrarily and mechanically kept his candidature pending till the outcome of the trial of other accused persons, which action is unreasonable and contrary to settled law, particularly when no Screening Committee proceedings were warranted in the peculiar facts of the present case.
2.3. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the relevant portion of the learned Trial Court judgment dated 03.08.2024, which reads as under:
"Today the charge sheet in Case Appeal Number 227/2022 was presented in the court by the investigating officer after investigation, all the documents were examined. After examination the accused (1) Lala (2) Bhago (3) Brijpal (4) Lokesh (5) Vikash (6) Guruji Kripal (7) Vineet (8) Tinku (9) Pawan (10) Ram Kumar (11) Keshav Chaudhari (12) Amit (13) Mohan Chaudhari (14) Sudhir Sharma (15) Pushpendra (16) Gaurav (17) Sachin S/o Late Lala (18) Keshav Chaudhari S/o Lohru (19) Mohit (20) Gurmeet Singh (21) Vipin (22) Arjun (23) Chintoo (24) Manish (25) Sonu Dharmendra (26) Banti (27) Pintoo (28) Umesh (29) Bharat Chaudhari (30) Robin (31) Anil (32) Satyendra (33) Pramod (34) Monu (35) Chander (36) Jagdish (37) Sangram Singh (38) Ankit (39) Naveen (40) Rajpal (41) Ankit S/o Rajpal (42) Gaurav (43) Anil Kumar S/o Gulveer Singh (44) Gulab (45) Vivek (46) Chitoo S/o Bhudev (47) Pankaj (48) Mahesh Kiranpal (49) Vivek (50) Prashant SHILPI GUPTA (51) Virendra (52) Dheeraj S/o Bhudev (53) Gaurav S/o SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 Kiranpal (54) Jitendra (55) Ravinder (56) Gaurav S/o 15:18:47+09'00' Kumbhkaran (57) Gajendra (58) Bhupendra S/o Radhakrishna (59) Gajendra Singh S/o Shishpal (60) Kalu (61) Mahesh S/o Dhir Singh (62) Praveen S/o Ravinder (63) Prem Malan (64) Aakash Tiwari (65) Bishan Singh (66) 5 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV Shahrukh (67) Ajay (68) Sachin Bhola (69) Manish S/o Pushpendra (70) Bhupendra S/o Prakash (71) There are sufficient grounds to take cognizance against Raghuveer under sections 147/1481149/307/333/332/353/3411 427/336/436112013 IPC 213/415 "illegible" 7CL Act.
Therefore, cognizance is taken against the above accused under the above sections. Therefore, it is ordered that the case be registered as a criminal suit and summons be issued against the accused for 02/09/2024."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the candidature of the applicant has merely been kept in abeyance and has not been rejected outright. It was further contended that the question of suitability for appointment to a disciplined force like Delhi Police is required to be assessed by the employer in accordance with the applicable rules and policy, and such assessment falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority. Learned counsel strongly relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. No. 2333/2015 decided on 10.03.2015 titled as Neeraj Kumar Vs. Delhi Police and Anr., relevant para of the which reads as under:-
"14. A candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and should be a person of utmost rectitude, impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot 15:18:47+09'00' be presumed that he was completely exonerated.
Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force (Ref: State of M.P & Ors v Parvez Khan, in Civil Appeal no. 10613 of 2014, decided on 1.12.2014). Character of a person is 6 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV vital for adjudging his suitability for the job. Anne Frank has rightly summed up the "character" in these lines:
"The final forming of a person's character lies in their own hands"."
3.1. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 4921/2024 decided on 15.01.2026 titled as Vikas Chaudhary Vs. Delhi Police and Anr., relevant paras of which are reproduced below:-
"5.6. In these circumstances, the Screening Committee was well within its jurisdiction to independently assess the nature and gravity of the offences, the manner of acquittal, and the overall antecedents of the applicant. Upon due consideration, the Committee found the applicant unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police. Such assessment cannot be termed arbitrary, mechanical, or unreasonable.
5.7. It is well settled that this Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Screening Committee unless the same is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or violative of statutory provisions. In the present case, the decision has been taken strictly in accordance with Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 and thus no ground is made out for interference.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, the present O.A. is dismissed.
3.2. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 has been passed strictly in accordance with Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 after due consideration by the Screening Committee; the applicant was found involved in FIR No. SHILPI GUPTA 227/2022 dated 17.06.2022, P.S. Tappal, Aligarh, SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 15:18:47+09'00' registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 333, 336, 341, 353, 427, 436, 120-B IPC and Sections 2 & 7 7 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, arising out of protests relating to the 'Agniveer Scheme', and though placed in Column No. 12 while 71 accused were chargesheeted, the case is pending trial, and his involvement may surface during evidence. Therefore, after the issuance of show cause notice and consideration of his reply, the Screening Committee rightly decided to keep his candidature pending until the final outcome of the trial, and the said action is legal, warranting dismissal of the O.A.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. We are of the considered opinion that mere acquittal in the criminal case involving the applicant does not, by itself, confer upon him an automatic or indefeasible right to be declared fit for appointment to the post in question. 5.2. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the respondents to exercise their discretion in a fair, judicious, and reasonable manner, after duly considering SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 15:18:47+09'00' all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations and the 8 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV requirements and sensitivity of the post in question. In short, such an exercise should always be undertaken by the respondents on a case to case basis. 5.3. 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 it 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.
SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 i) Even after due opportunity, the candidate still fails to 15:18:47+09'00' 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 efforts to obtain the relevant documents from 9 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV 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.
SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 15:18:47+09'00' 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.
10Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV (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, 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."
...
SHILPI GUPTA
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13
15:18:47+09'00' Annexure 'A'
SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE & OFFENCES UNDER 11 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV 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.
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 SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 Offences relating to MarriageSections-498-A. 15:18:47+09'00' 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 12 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV 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.
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 SecurityAct/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 SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 relevant to the facts."
15:18:47+09'00' 5.4. Applying the aforesaid Standing Order to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that FIR No. 227/2022 13 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV dated 17.06.2022, P.S. Tappal, Aligarh, was registered against the applicant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 333, 336, 341, 353, 427, 436, 120-B IPC and Sections 2 & 7 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. A perusal of Annexure 'A' appended to Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022 reveals that several of the offences invoked in the said FIR fall within the category of serious offenses involving moral turpitude, thereby attracting the applicability of the said policy.
5.5. The Screening Committee, while assessing the applicant's suitability, noted that several of the offences invoked in the said FIR fall within the category of serious offences involving moral turpitude, thereby attracting the applicability of the said policy. However, the Committee was required to exercise its mandate in a reasoned and contextual manner, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the extent of the candidate's involvement, and the overall circumstances and suitability for the post. It becomes crucial to examine the manner in which the Screening Committee exercised SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 15:18:47+09'00' its discretion.
14Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025
Court No. IV 5.6. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that though the applicant was initially named in FIR No. 227/2022, upon completion of the investigation he was neither charge-sheeted nor sent up for trial, and his name was placed in Column No. 12 of the charge sheet. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 03.08.2024, took cognizance only against the charge-sheeted accused persons and summoned them for trial; the applicant was not summoned, nor have any charges been framed against him. This clearly establishes that the investigating agency, after due scrutiny of the material, including statements of witnesses and other evidence, did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against the applicant.
5.7. While Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022 empowers the Screening Committee to assess suitability even in cases of acquittal or discharge, such power is not unfettered and must be exercised on the basis of tangible material reflecting the candidate's actual involvement. Mere mention of a candidate's name in an FIR, without any supporting material leading to the filing of a charge SHILPI GUPTA sheet or summoning by the Court, cannot be treated as SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 15:18:47+09'00' substantive evidence of criminal antecedents. To hold 15 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV otherwise would amount to penalizing a candidate solely on the basis of an unsubstantiated accusation. 5.8. In the instant case, the Screening Committee appears to have proceeded primarily on the gravity of the sections invoked in the FIR, without adequately appreciating the crucial fact that the applicant was found not involved during investigation and was not sent for trial. The possibility that his "involvement may surface during trial" is speculative and cannot form the basis for indefinitely keeping his candidature in abeyance, particularly when he is not an accused before the Trial Court. Administrative discretion must rest on existing material and not on conjecture. 5.9. The object of character verification is to assess suitability based on established antecedents. Where the competent investigating agency itself concludes that the individual is not involved in the alleged offences, and the Court does not take cognizance against him, the continuation of adverse consequences would be arbitrary and disproportionate. The present case, therefore, stands on a different footing from cases of acquittal on benefit of SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 doubt or compromise; it is a case of mistaken identity or 15:18:47+09'00' wrongful implication at the threshold stage, which did not survive investigation.
16Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV 5.10 The said FIR pertains to an alleged public demonstration in connection with the 'Agniveer' issue, wherein hundreds of persons were implicated, and the applicant's name was wrongly mentioned therein. However, upon thorough investigation and scrutiny of the statements of witnesses, the complainant, CDR and other material collected during the investigation, it was categorically found that the applicant had been falsely implicated and was not involved in the alleged incident, as it was a case of mistaken identity. Consequently, while the police filed a chargesheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction against only 70 accused persons, the applicant was neither chargesheeted nor placed in Column No. 16 as an accused sent for trial. Furthermore, the applicant has not even been summoned as an accused, and as such, no trial is pending. The Screening Committee has overlooked this aspect while examining the candidature of the applicant. 5.11 In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Screening Committee to keep the applicant's candidature pending until the SHILPI GUPTA conclusion of trial of other accused persons is SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 15:18:47+09'00' unsustainable in law, being based on presumption rather than proven involvement. Accordingly, the 17 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV impugned order dated 05.12.2024 and the show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 are liable to be quashed and set aside.
5.12 To sum up:
"Mistaken identity is like a mirage. We tend to believe in rumors, finding adversity. Illusions cannot be judgment. We miss the essential ingredients, like the identity itself."
5.13 The present case pertains to mistaken identity, and mere suspicion in such matters cannot be a substitute for concrete proof.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.12.2024 keeping the candidature of the applicant pending, along with the show cause notice dated 21.03.2024, is quashed and set aside.
6.2. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Constable SHILPI GUPTA (Exe.) in Delhi Police and, if he is otherwise found eligible SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13 15:18:47+09'00' and suitable, to issue an appropriate offer of 18 Item No. 84 O.A. No. 770/2025 Court No. IV appointment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.3. The applicant shall be entitled to notional seniority and other consequential benefits from the date his immediate junior was appointed, while actual monetary benefits shall accrue from the date of his joining.
6.4. It is made clear that in the event any credible material or evidence emerges in the future indicating the involvement of the applicant in any offense, the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with the law and rules, without prejudice to the rights of the applicant.
6.5. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/AS/
SHILPI GUPTA
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.02.13
15:18:47+09'00'