Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikas Kumar Kharb vs Comm. Of Police on 5 February, 2026
1
Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 73/2019
Reserved on:- 19.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 05.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Vikash Kumar Kharb, Age-29 years, Group -C,
S/o Sukhbir Singh,
R/o VPO-Nara,
The Madlauda,
Panipat, Haryana - 132113.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through the Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD, A -Wing, 5th floor,
Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi - 110113.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, MSO Building,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment,
New Police Line, Kingsway Camp,
New Delh - 110009.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.06
10:20:19
NI +05'30'
2
Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8.1 To quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 15.06.2018 and order dated 30.11.2018, whereby the candidature of the applicant to the post of SI (Exe.) is cancelled, and to further direct the respondents that the applicant be given appointment to the post of SI (Exe.) with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, pay and allowances.
OR / AND 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 case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in FIR No. 902/2017 dated 15.10.17 u/s 186/279/332/336/419 IPC P.S. Model Town, Panipat at the instance of the complainant, who himself was a police official and also acted as the Investigating Officer, thereby vitiating the entire prosecution. It was contended that the applicant was honourably acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 06.01.2018, which clearly disbelieved the prosecution version, noted the absence of any public witness, and held that the allegations were doubtful and unsupported ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 3 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV by evidence. Learned counsel highlighted the relevant portion of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"11. After hearing both the parties and evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that as per the version of the prosecution in the present case, in the intervening night of 14/15-10-2017, the above named accused drove his car bearing no. HR-06 AF -1748 in a rash and negligent manner and when police officials stopped him then he hold his name as Rakesh and showed to the police officials the I-card of the Rakesh which was of the Haryana Police Department and misbehaved with the police officials and in this manner, he has committed offence under sections 186, 279, 336, 332 and 419 of the IPC. However, while deposing in the witness box it has come on record that accused did not misbehave with any of the police official nor any altercation took place. Further, it has also come on record that the alleged I-card was kept into the rack of the car. PW-4 HC Rakesh Kumar who is the brother of the accused came into the witness box and deposed that accused in his younger brother who lives with him in the joint family and on the aforesaid date of occurrence, he took his car for attending a wedding and he generally keeps his I-card, his uniform and other documents of the car in the aforesaid car only. Thus, there is no abnormality if the I-card of Rakesh was found in the aforesaid car when it was taken by the accused for attending the wedding. All these facts create doubt in the story of the prosecution. Further, no public witness has been joined by the IO to prove the facts alleged by the prosecution. Further, there is no iota of evidence qua the fact that accused was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner nor there is any evidence that accused caused any obstruction while the police officials were performing their duties. In this manner, entire version of the prosecution is shrouded in doubt and benefit of doubt should be given to the accused."
2.1. Highlighting the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the acquittal being on merits, the applicant cannot be branded as unsuitable for public employment merely on the basis of registration of an FIR. It was further argued that the applicant had made full disclosure of the criminal case in the application and attestation forms, and therefore the case is not one of concealment.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 4 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV 2.2. Learned counsel emphasized that no independent inquiry was conducted by the Screening Committee and that the impugned rejection is based solely on the existence of an FIR, despite acquittal, which is arbitrary and contrary to settled law.
2.3. Reliance was placed on the following judgments:
Union of India v. Deepa Tomar, judgment dated
03.12.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 1051/2014 , Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
GNCTD v. Robin Singh, W.P.(C) No. 2068/2010, judgment dated 25.08.2010, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Manoj v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 11979/2015, judgment dated 15.07.2016, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Jogender Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors., (2015) 2 SCC 377, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Delhi Police v. Ombeer Yadav, W.P.(C) No. 12899/2009, judgment dated 19.04.2010, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Commissioner of Police v. Krishan Kumar, W.P.(C) No. 5156/2012, judgment dated 03.09.2012, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 5 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV 2.4. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments learned counsel contended that involvement in a criminal case, followed by acquittal on merits, especially in cases not involving moral turpitude, cannot be a ground to deny appointment, and that the applicant, having cleared the selection process on merit and now being overage for similar employment, deserves fair consideration for appointment to the post of SI (Exe.) in Delhi Police.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the candidature of the applicant was cancelled strictly in accordance with law and the applicable policy after following due process. It was argued that upon receipt of the applicant's dossier from the Staff Selection Commission, the applicant himself disclosed his involvement in FIR No. 902/2017 in the attestation form, pursuant to which a show cause notice dated 15.06.2018 was rightly issued. After considering the applicant's reply and the complete record of the criminal case, the matter was placed before a duly constituted Screening Committee and the Screening Committee, headed by senior officers, examined the nature of allegations, the conduct attributed to the applicant, and the fact that the acquittal was granted on benefit of doubt, and concluded that such conduct rendered the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 6 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV applicant unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the matter was duly examined by the Screening Committee in accordance with Standing Order and the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. v. Mehar Singh, (CA No. 4842/2013, State of M.P. & ors. Vs. Parvez Khan(CA No. 10613/2014), Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Ors., (CA No. 67/2018) and Union of India v. Methu Meda (Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 2021). It was further contended that the decision-making process was fair, reasoned, and based on relevant material, and therefore no interference is warranted with the cancellation order dated 30.11.2018.
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 all relevant facts and ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 7 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations and the 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.
i) Even after due opportunity, the candidate still fails to enclose/provide the certified/photocopies of the record/investigation and trial alongwith reply to the show ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 8 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV 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 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.
If the case is not of trivial nature then the suitability of the candidate/candidature would be decided by the Screening ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 9 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV Committee, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
(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."
...
Annexure 'A' ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 10 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE & OFFENCES UNDER 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 Offences relating to MarriageSections-498-A. In cases relating to marriage i.e. 498-A/406 IPC and dowry prohibition act, the candidate may be debarred if he/she is ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 11 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV main accused and not collateral accused. However, if he/she 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 relevant to the facts."
5.4. Applying the aforesaid Standing Order to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the FIR registered against the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 12 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV applicant was FIR No. 902/2017 dated 15.10.2017 at Police Station Model Town, Panipat under Sections 186/279/332/336/419 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of Annexure 'A' appended to Standing Order No. HRD- 12/2022 shows that offences under Sections 332 and 419 of IPC are categorized as serious offences involving moral turpitude.
5.5. The Screening Committee, while assessing the applicant's suitability, noted that Section 332 and 419 of IPC involves serious offences. 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 suitability for the post. It becomes crucial to examine the manner in which the Screening Committee exercised its discretion. While it is correct that Sections 332 and 419 IPC find mention in Annexure 'A' to the Standing Order as offences involving moral turpitude, such categorization cannot be applied mechanically or in abstraction, divorced from the factual matrix of the case and the outcome of the criminal trial.
5.6. A careful perusal of the judgment dated 06.01.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court reveals that the acquittal of the applicant was not on account of technical grounds or ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 13 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV compromise, but was founded on a clear disbelief of the prosecution version. The Trial Court categorically recorded that there was no misbehaviour, no obstruction to public servants in discharge of duty, no evidence of rash or negligent driving, and no material to substantiate impersonation. The absence of independent public witnesses and the inherent improbabilities in the prosecution case led the Court to grant the applicant the benefit of doubt, which, in the facts of the present case, is closely aligned with an acquittal on merits. 5.7. Significantly, the allegations forming the basis of the FIR emanated from a complainant who was himself a police official and also acted as the Investigating Officer, a circumstance which casts a serious shadow on the fairness of the investigation and lends credence to the defence version accepted by the Trial Court. These aspects do not appear to have received due and meaningful consideration by the Screening Committee.
5.8. The mandate of Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022 requires the Screening Committee not merely to note the sections invoked in the FIR, but to undertake a nuanced assessment of (i) the nature and extent of involvement of the candidate, (ii) the manner of acquittal, and (iii) the gravity of the allegations as tested on judicial scrutiny. The exercise ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 14 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV contemplated is one of judicious evaluation and not of blanket exclusion based solely on the nomenclature of offences. 5.9. In the present case, the impugned decision proceeds primarily on the premise that the applicant was acquitted by granting benefit of doubt and that the sections involved are serious in nature. Such an approach, in our considered view, falls short of the standard of a reasoned and contextual assessment envisaged under the Standing Order. The Screening Committee has not demonstrated, through cogent reasoning, as to how the conduct attributed to the applicant, which stood disbelieved by the Trial Court, renders him unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force. 5.10. It is also not in dispute that the applicant had made full and truthful disclosure of the criminal case in the attestation and verification forms. Therefore, the present case is not one involving suppression, which could independently justify adverse inference against the applicant. 5.11. While it is settled law that acquittal does not ipso facto confer a right to appointment, it is equally well settled that denial of appointment must rest on objective satisfaction derived from relevant material and not on mere existence of an FIR or a formal categorization of offences. The discretion vested in the employer, particularly in matters of public ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 15 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV employment, is not unfettered and remains subject to the touchstone of fairness, proportionality, and non-arbitrariness. 5.12. In the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the decision-making process adopted by the respondents suffers from non-application of mind to material aspects emerging from the criminal court judgment and an unduly rigid application of the Standing Order. Consequently, the impugned show cause notice dated 15.06.2018 and the cancellation order dated 30.11.2018 cannot be sustained.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 15.06.2018 and the consequential order dated 30.11.2018 cancelling the candidature of the applicant are hereby quashed and set aside.
6.2. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of SI (Ex.) and, if the applicant is otherwise found eligible to issue an appropriate offer of 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 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:19 NI +05'30' 16 Item No. 49 O.A. No. 73/2019 Court No. IV junior was appointed, while actual monetary benefits shall accrue from the date of joining.
6.4. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.06
10:20:19
NI +05'30'