Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Lokesh Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 8 August, 2025
1
OA No. 856/2020
Item No. 33 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 856/2020
This the 08th Day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Lokesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Satish Kumar
R/o VPO Jataula, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar,
District Gurugram, Haryana-122504
Aged about 24 years
(Group C)
(Candidate to the post of Constable in Delhi Police)
.... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra with Mr. Jatin Parashar and
Ms. Meenu Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, MSO Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
(Recruitment Cell)
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi
.... RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra)
2
OA No. 856/2020
Item No. 33 (C-4)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs :
(a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders/actions of the respondents dated 05/07/2019 (Annexure A/1) and 08/10/2018 (Annexure A/2)
(b) Direct the respondents to further consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police.
(c) Accord all consequential 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 interest of justice in favour of the applicants.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was an aspirant for the post of Constable (Executive) (Male) in Delhi Police and had participated in the recruitment exercise conducted by the Delhi Police for the year 2016. He was allotted Roll No. 2201030502 and was provisionally selected subject to the satisfactory verification of his character antecedents. He then filled in the Attestation Form and duly informed therein that he had been involved in a criminal case, registered vide FIR No 79/16 u/s 387/389/506/365/511/120-B IPC at PS- Khedki Daula, Gurugram (Haryana).
3OA No. 856/2020 Item No. 33 (C-4)
3. The respondents on receipt of the character antecedents report, issued a show cause notice dated 08.10.2018, pressing therein for cancellation of his candidature. The applicant duly submitted reply to the said show cause notice and informed that in the interregnum, the applicant had been acquitted by the competent Trial Court vide an order dated 14.06.2018.
4. Ideally respondents at that stage itself ought to have withdrawn the SCN and have taken a fresh decision with respect to issuing the SCN. However that was not to be. Respondnets instead skipped the step and placed the case of the applicant before the Screening Committee.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Screening Committee which has been constituted by the respondents to assess the suitability of the candidates considered case of the applicant, and was pleased to confirm the show cause notice issuing the impugned order dated 05.07.2019, whereby his candidature has been cancelled.
6. Drawing our attention to the impugned order, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the same is a evident of non application of mind by respondents. The impugned order has only recorded the facts and repeated the 4 OA No. 856/2020 Item No. 33 (C-4) allegations made in the FIR. There is no indication in the impugned order that the case of the applicant has been considered on merits. In the last para of the said order, it has been stated that since during the Trial, the complainant had resiled from the statement made to the Police and did not support the prosecution case, the applicant was acquitted. Further that the learned Trial Court while acquitting the applicant had extended the benefit of doubt. Counsel thus submitted that the Screening committee has only considered the fact that complainant did not support the prosecution. The committee has ignored the fact that no incriminating evidence was brought forth by the prosecution.
7. Learned counsel further stated that the respondents have based its decision of cancelling of the candidature upon consideration of the nature of offence alleged to have been committed.
8. The applicant thus implored the Tribunal to consider not only the above submissions but the fact that once the applicant has faced due trial for the said allegations, which were not proved by the prosecution, the action of the respondents in cancelling his candidature based on the 5 OA No. 856/2020 Item No. 33 (C-4) said allegations, is bad in law and hence deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
9. On issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit and are also contesting the OA.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that an opportunity was granted by the respondents to the applicant by issuing the show cause notice. The applicant could not prove his innocence before the Screening Committee and that the Screening Committee did not find the candidature acceptable.
11. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has read order passed by the Ld. Trial Court i.e. the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gurgaon. He relied on para 10, 11 and 12 of the said order which reads as under:
10. Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC was dispensed with as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons.
11. In view of the discussion made above, this court is of the considered view that there is no iota of incriminating evidence available on record against the accused. After hearing learned A.P.P. and learned defence counsel and have gone through the case file carefully, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution evidence led on record shows that the most material witness i.e. complainant has denied the involvement of the accused 6 OA No. 856/2020 Item No. 33 (C-4) persons in the offences alleged against them. The complainant has refilled from his statement made to the police and have not supported the prosecution case. The another witness also did not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile.
Hence allegation leveled against accused are not established. The complainant in this case is the star witness but he was declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. This witness have not uttered anything incriminating against the accused to connect him with the alleged offence.
12. In the present case, prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt accordingly, granting benefit of doubt. It is a well settled principle of law there where prosecution fails to dispel the doubts. The benefit of the same be given to the accused. Thus, by extending the benefit of doubt. The above accused persons namely Manjeet Singh son of Sh. Karan Singh Yadav, Satish Kumar son of Sh. Ramkishan, Lovkesh son of Sh. Satish Kumar, Jitender son of Sh. Satish Kumar, Ajit Yadav son of Sh. Bhudhram are hereby acquitted form the charged leveled against them under Section 120 B, 365, 387, 389 and 506 of IPC. Bail bond and surety bonds of accused persons are restored for six months in compliance of Section 437-A CrPC. Case property be dealt in accordance with law if any. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
12. He submits that this was a case where the no incriminating evidence could be brought forth by the prosecution, as such statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC also was dispensed with. He submits that in such a case, when the applicant is acquitted, it cannot be termed as acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. It is a fit case where the acquittal ought to be treated as honourable acquittal. He has relied on the 7 OA No. 856/2020 Item No. 33 (C-4) decision dated 10.12.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 5675/2017 titled as Sandeep Singh vs. GNCT of Delhi, annexed with the rejoinder wherein vide para 7, 8, 9 and 10, the Hon'ble High Court in a similar case has held as under :
7. In the present case, the Trial Court delivered a judgment on 14th March, 2001 acquitting the Petitioner. This was duly disclosed by the Petitioner in his application form. The only question, therefore, whether his acquittal was not on technical grounds or by giving him the benefit of doubt?
8. This Court has carefully perused a copy of the judgment of the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 159/2000 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 119/2001. The charge against the Petitioner was for the commission of offences under Sections 307/324/34 of the IPC for which FIR No. 42/2000 was registered against him at PS, Kundli.
The relevant portion of the said judgment, as far as the Petitioner is concerned, reads as under:
"So far as the allegations against the accused Sandeep are concerned there is no evidence on the file to connect the accused Sandeep with the alleged occurrence. So, the statement of the accused Sandeep under section 313 Cr PC is dispensed with."
9. Clearly, therefore, in the Petitioner‟s case, the acquittal was not on account of any „benefit of doubt‟; it was on the basis that there was no evidence. It was for this reason that even recording his statement under Section 313 Cr PC was dispensed with.
10. Consequently, applying the judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (supra), this Court sets aside the impugned orders cancelling the candidature of the Petitioner as well as the order dated 21st May, 2015 passed by the CAT dismissing O.A. No. 1882/2013 and the subsequent order dated 15th February, 2016 dismissing his 8 OA No. 856/2020 Item No. 33 (C-4) R.A. No. 209/2015. The Court directs the Respondents to issue orders appointing the Petitioner as Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police not later than 4 weeks from today. While the Petitioner would not be entitled to any arrears of pay, for the purpose of seniority and notional pay fixation, the date on which his batch-mates were appointed as Constables would be reckoned. Needless to state, the Petitioner would be entitled to all other consequential benefits as well.
13. He submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the acquittal of the applicant ought to be treated as honourable not on account of any benefit of doubt.
14. Countering the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police vs. Mehar Singh Civil Appeal No. 4842/2013. He draws attention to para 21 of the said order which reads as under :
21. The expression 'honourable acquittal' was considered by this Court in S. Samuthiram. In that case this Court was concerned with a situation where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a police officer. Criminal case was pending against him under Section 509 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Eve-teasing Act. He was acquitted in that case because of the non-examination of key witnesses. There was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case. Two material witnesses turned hostile. Referring to the judgment of this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal[12], where in somewhat similar fact situation, this Court upheld a bank's action of refusing to reinstate an employee in service on the ground that in the criminal case he was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt and, therefore, 9 OA No. 856/2020 Item No. 33 (C-4) it was not an honourable acquittal, this Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in departmental proceedings. This Court observed that the expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame' and 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code. They are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. This Court expressed that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges leveled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. In light of above, we are of the opinion that since the purpose of departmental proceedings is to keep persons, who are guilty of serious misconduct or dereliction of duty or who are guilty of grave cases of moral turpitude, out of the department, if found necessary, because they pollute the department, surely the above principles will apply with more vigour at the point of entry of a person in the police department i.e. at the time of recruitment. If it is found by the Screening Committee that the person against whom a serious case involving moral turpitude is registered is discharged on technical grounds or is acquitted of the same charge but the acquittal is not honourable, the Screening Committee would be entitled to cancel his candidature. Stricter norms need to be applied while appointing persons in a disciplinary force because public interest is involved in it.
15. Resting his reliance on the same, learned counsel submits that in case the Screening Committee finds that the person against whom a serious case involving moral turpitude is registered, is discharged on technical grounds or is acquitted of the same charge but the acquittal is not honourable, the Screening Committee would be entitled to cancel his candidature. He further relies on the decision 10 OA No. 856/2020 Item No. 33 (C-4) rendered by this Tribunal in OA No 3136/2023 dated 31.07.2025.
16. We have considered the rival submissions. The reliance of the respondents on the aforementioned recent decision is misplaced since the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The applicant therein had not disclosed the criminal case while filling up the Attestation Form and further, during Trial, it had come on record that the weapon used in the offence had been recovered by the Police during investigation from him. It was in these circumstances that the Tribunal has dismissed the OA No 3136/2023.
17. In the present case, we find that the order of the Hon'ble High Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and following the same, the present OA is allowed. The impugned order are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue the offer of appointment to the applicant as per his merit, of course, without the benefit of backwages and seniority. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11OA No. 856/2020 Item No. 33 (C-4)
18. With the aforesaid directions, the OA stands allowed. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/nk/