Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shubham Tomar vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 7 November, 2025
1
Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2909/2024
Reserved on: 30
30.10.2025
Pronounced on: 07.11.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Shubham Tomar,
Tomar
Aged about 21 years,
S/o Shri Shiv Kumar
R/o VPO Jiwana,
Teh Baraut,
Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh-250623
Pradesh
...Applicant
(By Advocates:
Advocate Ms. Esha Mazumdar with Mr. Setu Niket,
Ms. Muskan Sharma, Mr. Manish Kumar
Kumar)
Versus
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Northern Region
Block No. 12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi - 110003
2. Ministry of Home Affairs
Through Secretary (Home)
North Block
New Delhi - 110001
...Respondents
(By Advocates:
Advocate Mr. Ramjan Khan with Ms. Illashree
Illashree)
2
Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. Call for records of the case;
B. Pass an order directing the Respondents to grant joining to the Applicant to the post of Constable (GD), Secretariat Security Force, in terms of the appointment letter dated 28/08/2023, along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, etc., along with interest at GPF rates;
C. Award costs of the proceedings; and D. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of Tribunal justice in favour of the Applicant."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. The applicant, being a meritorious candidate, successfully qualified all stages stages of recruitment for the post of Constable (GD) in the Secretariat Security Force conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, including the Computer-Based Based Test, Physical Efficiency & Measurement Test, Document Verification, and Medical Examination. An 3 Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 offer fer of appointment appointment dated 28.08.2023 was issued to the applicant. However, despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions, the respondents have not issued the joining order. The applicant made several representations, but the respondents only replied that the th joining to the post in question shall be considered after the final decision of the District Court, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh in FIR No. 165/2021.
2.2. Learned counsel for for the applicant contended that the aforesaid said FIR is false and politically motivated, ar arising from local panchayat elections in which the app applicant was wrongly implicated. It was further contended that tthe applicant has never been convicted and has clean antecedents. Other co-accused co accused in the same case have already joined government service in ITBP and other departments. Therefore, the he action of the respondents in withholding the applicant's joining is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.4
Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is a well-settled settled principle of law that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny appointment. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471, and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022, learned counsel submitted that in both these cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that each case must be considered on its own merits and that a candidate candidate cannot be denied employment solely on account of a pending criminal case. Further reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Prashant Deep v. High Court of Delhi Delhi, W.P.(C) 1960/2019, wherein it was observed that not every brush with the law affects a person's moral character. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of this Tribunal in Gum Dutt Ranga v. GNCTD & Anr.
Anr., wherein it was held that mere involvement in a criminal case does not, by itself, reflect unsatisfactory unsatisfactory character. Additionally, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. v. South East Central 5 Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 Railways & Ors., Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 11360 11360-11363 of 2018, wherein it was held that the State, being bound by Arti Article 14 of the Constitution, must act fairly and avoid arbitrariness in matters of appointment. 2.4. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that, in view of the aforesaid settled legal principles, the action of the respondents in withholding th the applicant's appointment despite his merit and eligibility is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to law. Accordingly, it was prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue the joining order to the applicant in terms of the appointment tment letter dated 28.08.2023, along with all consequential benefits.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that applicant's appointment as Constable (GD) in the Secretariat Security Force (SSF) cannot be finalized due to the pendency of a criminal case against him under FIR No. 165/2021 registered at Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, involving serious offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 6 Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 and 326 of the IPC. Learned counsel stated that, although a final report indicating lack of evidence was filed by the police, the case remains pending before the District and Sessions Court, Baghpat.
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that that, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) vide O.M. dated 30.03.2016 and 02.07.1982, candidates for sensitive posts such as those in the Ministry of Home Affairs must undergo detailed verification of character and antecedents, and the appointing authority authority must assess their suitability. Considering the gravity of charges and the sensitive nature of duties in SSF, the Ministry decided to await the final outcome of the criminal proceedings before allowing the applicant to join service. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents contended contend that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in withholding the applicant's joining, and the OA deserves to be rejected as being devoid of merit merit.
4. The rejoinder on behalf of the applicant primarily highlights that the criminal case against the applicant is 7 Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 baseless and politically motivated, and the Investigating Officer's final report dated 30.09.2021 found him not guilty and not present at the scene. It emphasized that the respondents acted acted arbitrarily and contrary to settled law and natural tural justice by withholding applicant's joining despite his clean record and full disclosure, reiterating that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot bar appoint appointment.
5. In the written submission filed on behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the he Applicant has been unjustly denied joining to the post of Constable (GD) in the Secretariat Security Force despite being issued an offer of appointment dated 28.08.2023, solely on account of a false and fabricated ricated criminal case, FIR No. 165/2021. However, the Ld. Sessions Judge, Baghpat, vide judgment dated 31.10.2025 in Sessions Case No. 700/2023, held that "accordingly, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges." It is further submitted that the the Applicant, a meritorious EWS category candidate, had successfully cleared all stages of the selection process and was included in the final merit list. The police verification and reports from the District 8 Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 Magistrate, Joint Director Director of Prosecution, and Superintendent of Police, Baghpat, all describe his conduct as good and raise no objection to his appointment. Relying on precedents such as Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra (CA No. 10571/2018 10571/2018) of the Hon'ble Court ESIC Supreme Court, IC v. Vinod Kumar (W.P.(C) No. 15591/2025) of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 15591/2025) Court, and others, it is submitted that mere pendency or acquittal on benefit of doubt cannot justify denial of public employment. As the criminal case has concluded in his favour and no adverse material exists, withholding his appointment is arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
7.. ANALYSIS:
7.1.
.1. The issue for consideration is whether the applicant, having been issued an offer of appointment dated 28.08.2023 for the post of Constable (GD) in the Secretariat Security Force, can be denied joining solely because of the pendency of FIR No. 165/2021 registered at Police Station 9 Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 Ramala, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, and 326 IPC. 7.2.
.2. The applicant, app successfully cleared all stages of recruitment, including Computer-Based Computer Based Test, Physical Efficiency & Measurement Test, Document Verification, and Medical Examination. Despite fulfilling all eligibility criteria, his joining has been withheld.
7.3. The FIR in question appears to be baseless and politically motivated, arising from local panchayat elections as it is evident vident that the the Investigating Officer, after detailed inquiry, filed a final report on 30.09.2021, finding the applicant not guilty.
guilty 7.4. Furthermore, legal legal precedents establish that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot bar appointment. In Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a candidate cannot be denied employment solely on account of a pending criminal case. 10 Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 7.5.. In this context, we e also draw reference to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 13913/2024 Vikas Nagar vs. Union of India & Ors.
13913/2024, Ors., wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"2.
2. While we are cognizant of the position in law that normally the courts would be circumspect in interfering normally 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 and the opinion of the Screening Commit 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 petitioner and his wife. The proceedings in the said criminal case have been stayed by the 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, mployment, 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 based on his own merit and qualification. In case, the petitioner is not allowed tto 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 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 of an inquiry.
4. We, therefore, dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned 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 dated 30.08.2023, registered at Police Station Nakhasa, District 30.08.2023, 11 Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 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 en 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 is disposed of in the above terms."
8.. CONCLUSION :
8.1. In view of the above discussion and, particularly, in light of the subsequent development wherein the Ld. Sessions Judge, Baghpat, vide judgment dated 31.10.2025 in Sessions Case No. 700/2023, held that "accordingly, the accused are entitled to the benefit benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges," the very basis for withholding the applicant's joining no longer exists.
8.2. The criminal proceedings having culminated in acquittal, and the verification reports of the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and Joint Director of Prosecution finding no adverse material against the applicant, there remains no legal or moral impediment to his appointment.12
Item No. 40 (C-4) O.A. No. 2909/2024 8.3. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to permit the applicant to join the post of Constable (GD) in the Secretariat Security Force in terms of the appointment letter dated 28.08.2023, 28.08.2023, within a period of four weeks from receipt of this order, and to grant all consequential benefits as admissible in law.
8.4. Since the applicant stands acquitted, there shall be no condition of joining being subject to the outcome of the aforesaid FIR.
FIR However, if the said judgmen judgment is reversed in appeal in future, the respondents shall be free to take appropriate action as per law.
8.5. The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Anand S. Khati)
Kha (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/