Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashwani Malik vs Delhi Police on 24 February, 2026
1
Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4542/2024
Reserved on :- 11.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 24.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Ashwani Malik
Recruit Constable of Delhi Police
Roll No. 3011 001 011
Aged about 24 years
S/o Sh. Deshpal Singh
R/o House No. 43,
Vill: Dungar, P.S.: Fugana,
Distt.: Muzaffarnagar,
U.P. - 247775
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Delhi Police
Through Commissioner of Police,
New PHQ, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chairman, Screening Committee
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001.
3. DCP (Recruitment)
NPL, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi - 110009.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Nidhi Rai)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLAN2026.02.27
10:42:44
I +05'30'
2
Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024
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) To quash the impugned SCN dt.15.4.2024 and Order dt.8.1 0.2024 and direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of Constable (Ex. ) with all consequential benefits including Seniority/promotion and arrears . of pay particularly when the applicant is not able to get job despite his best efforts.
B) To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. The applicant was born on 01.01.2001 as per his Matriculation Certificate issued by CBSE (Annexure A-3).
He applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police under Recruitment-2023 and successfully qualified the Physical, Medical, Written as well as Interview/Personality Tests and was provisionally selected.
2.2. Thereafter, he was issued Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2024 on account of his disclosure of involvement in FIR No. 7/2018 dated 08.01.2018 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. The ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 3 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV applicant submitted all relevant documents including copy of Judgment dated 11.10.2022 (Annexure A-4), whereby he stood acquitted. The relevant portion of the said judgment, reads as under:
"The PW-1 Mujibur Rahman from his evidence, it is clear that he is B.A. Pass. The Evidence given by this prosecution witness before the Hon'ble Court, it seems that this witness who has given statement about the incidence against accused which is complaint is Exhibit A-I is incorrect, false or this witness who has prosecuted the evidence related to the incident in the court is false.
Therefore, the cause if of the View that in the interest of justice, the Petitioner of the case PW-1 Mujibur Rahman be tried summarily (summary trial) for giving false Evidence before the Court from the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view it is just and proper that the petitioner of the case PW-1 Mujibur Rahman against him it is justifiable to initiate, action under Section 344 of Cr. P.C. therefore, the Petitioner of the case to take cognizance against prosecution witness PW-1 Mujibur Rahman under Section 344 of the Cr. P.C. ORDER In the case of Session Trial No. 348/2019, C.C. No. 07/2018, Police Station Kotwali, Shamli, district Shamli, the accused Ashwani Malik is acquitted of the alleged charges levelled under Section 323, 308 I.P.C.
The accused Ashwani Malik is on bail in the present case, his personal bond and bail bond is cancelled and surety are discharged from their liability.
The Petitioner of case PW-1 Mujibur Rahman against him under Section 344 of Cr. P.C. under it separate from miscellaneous case be registered and for giving false evidence before the Court or for fabricating it to clear his objective/aim the Petitioner of the case, to issue Notice against Prosecution witness PW-1 Mujibur Rahman under Section 344 Cr. P.C. on the date 12.11.2022 is fixed. The registered miscellaneous case in this case file. One copy of this judgment one copy of complaint Exhibit A-I and the above witness who as witness PW-1 Oral Evidence one-one copy be given."
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 4 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV 2.3. Learned counsel contended that the Trial Court not only acquitted the applicant for want of incriminating evidence and non-identification by witnesses, but also initiated proceedings against the complainant under Section 344 CrPC, thereby establishing falsity of the allegations. It is pertinent that on the date of the alleged incident/FIR i.e. 08.01.2018, the applicant was only 17 years old and thus a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. However, the crucial aspect of juvenility was neither examined nor considered by the Screening Committee while passing the impugned Order dated 08.10.2024 rejecting his candidature solely on the ground of involvement in the said FIR.
2.4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that mere registration of an FIR cannot be treated as proof of guilt as held in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604). It is settled law that only conviction, not acquittal, can impede appointment, as held in Matadeen Garg vs. State of Rajasthan (SLP No. 15234/88, decided on 12.07.1991). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar (CA No. 1430/2007, judgment dated 17.03.2011), Pawan Kumar (1996 (2) SLJ 9), and State of M.P. vs. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 5 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV Ramashankar Raghuvanshi (1983 SCC (L&S) 263) has held that Government service is not reserved only for "angels" and that youthful indiscretions or minor involvements cannot permanently stigmatize a candidate. Further reliance is placed on Municipal Committee, Jaitu vs. Gulab Singh (2003 (3) SCT 1011). 2.5. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the core issue in the present OA is whether a candidate who was a juvenile at the time of alleged occurrence and who stands acquitted on merits, with no adverse material regarding his character and antecedents, can be denied appointment merely on account of past involvement in an FIR. Learned counsel argued that the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 is arbitrary, ignores the statutory protection available to juveniles, overlooks the effect of acquittal, and amounts to sitting in appeal over the Trial Court's judgment.
3. Opposing the O.A., learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the candidature of the applicant was rightly cancelled by the duly constituted Screening Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 on account of his involvement in FIR No. 07/2018 dated 08.01.2018 registered under Sections 323/308 IPC at PS Kotwali, Shamli, U.P. Although the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 6 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV applicant was only 17 years old, a school-going student, and claimed to be falsely implicated, the Committee considered these aspects but found that the acquittal was not "honourable" as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case, resulting in benefit of doubt being given. The Committee further observed that the applicant was charge-sheeted as the single assailant and that the nature and gravity of the offences were serious.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that although the applicant was acquitted, the acquittal was on account of compromise and therefore cannot be treated as an "honourable acquittal," in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CP Delhi v. Mehar Singh (Civil Appeal No. 4842/2012), CP Delhi v. Shani Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 4965/2012), and Union of India v. Methu Meda (2022 1 SCC 1), which permits the Screening Committee to assess the nature of the candidate's involvement and criminal propensity notwithstanding acquittal. Moreover, given the sensitive and disciplined nature of service in the Delhi Police, strict standards of character, conduct, and antecedents are required, justifying a careful evaluation beyond mere acquittal.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 7 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV
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 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:
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 8 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV "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 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.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 9 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV
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 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 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 10 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV 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' 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. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 11 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV
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 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. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 12 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV
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 apparent that FIR No. 07/2018 dated 08.01.2018 registered under Sections 323/308 IPC at PS Kotwali, Shamli, U.P. was registered against the applicant. A perusal of Annexure 'A' appended to Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022 reveals that offence under Section 308 of IPC is categorized as serious offence involving moral turpitude, thereby attracting the applicability of the said policy. The Screening Committee, while assessing the applicant's suitability, noted this fact. However, the Committee was required to exercise its mandate in a reasoned and contextual manner, taking ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 13 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV 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 its discretion. 5.5. On a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant was a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident, being only 17 years old on 08.01.2018. The age and status of the applicant as a school-going student were neither disputed nor examined adequately by the Screening Committee while issuing the impugned order dated 08.10.2024. The principle of juvenile protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 mandates that a person below the age of 18 years must be treated differently, and mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be considered a permanent stigma, especially when the individual has been acquitted.
5.6. It is settled law that mere registration of an FIR or charge-sheet is not proof of guilt, and acquittal on merits extinguishes any presumption of criminal culpability. In the present case, the trial court not only acquitted the applicant but also initiated proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. against the complainant for giving false ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 14 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV evidence, which underscores that the allegations against the applicant were false and fabricated. The benefit of doubt in criminal cases, especially involving juveniles, cannot be mechanically treated as a negative reflection on the candidate's character for service. 5.7. The Screening Committee relied upon the fact that the acquittal was not "honourable," on the ground that witnesses turned hostile, to deny appointment. However, this reasoning does not take into account that hostility or compromise by witnesses does not reflect on the inherent character or integrity of the accused. The Committee also ignored the statutory protection available to juveniles.
5.8. The Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 indeed empowers the Screening Committee to examine antecedents and suitability of candidates even after acquittal. However, such discretion must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and contextually, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including age at the time of alleged offence, acquittal on merits, lack of adverse material regarding character, and the overall suitability for service. In the present case, the Screening Committee appears to have applied a mechanical approach, equating acquittal due to hostile witnesses with moral ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 15 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV turpitude, without any independent assessment of the applicant's present character or suitability. 5.9. The offences alleged are serious in nature, but the applicant's acquittal, especially in a case where the complainant was later subjected to proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C., significantly weakens the presumption of wrongdoing. There is no material on record to suggest that the applicant has any history of misconduct or criminal propensity beyond this FIR. 5.10. Considering the age of the applicant at the time of the alleged incident, his disclosure of the FIR at the time of application, and the complete acquittal in the trial court, it is apparent that the denial of appointment amounts to penalizing a juvenile for alleged past conduct that has been judicially cleared. Such denial is arbitrary and inconsistent with the principle of fairness and equal opportunity in public employment. 5.11. While the Delhi Police rightly requires strict standards of character and antecedents for its personnel, such standards must be applied in a proportionate manner, especially when the candidate has been acquitted and was a juvenile at the time of the incident. The Screening Committee's reliance on the "non- ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 16 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV honourable" nature of acquittal without contextual evaluation is excessive.
5.12. In Akhilesh Kumar vs. UOI & ors. (W.P. (C) No. 6136/2017), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:
16. In the above noted writ petition also, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents was that it was the duty of the petitioner to have furnished the relevant details of the criminal case pending against him at the time of filling up the verification form. But he failed to do so and the pendency of the said case came to the notice of the respondents only upon undertaking necessary police verification regarding his antecedents. The above writ petition was allowed for the following reasons:-
"7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the documents on the record. The facts of the case are undisputed inasmuch as there is no quarrel with regard to the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of the alleged offence i.e. on 9th October, 2000, the petitioner was twelve years five months old. It is also not disputed that on the date the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of a Constable in the year 2011, a case was pending against him before the Juvenile Justice Board and same was the position on 25th May, 2014, when the petitioner was called upon by the respondents to submit an attestation form. The said criminal case attained finality by virtue of the judgment dated 3rd August, 2015, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, District Gopalganj. However, less than a week prior thereto, the respondents passed the order of discharge against the petitioner, on the ground of withholding material information.
8. Having regard to the legal position, which shows that the petitioner was undoubtedly, a juvenile on the date when the alleged offence had been committed and, therefore, he was required to be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which declares that all criminal charges against individuals, who are described as "juvenile in conflict with law" must ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 17 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV be initiated and decided by the authorities constituted under the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board. Even if a conviction is recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Section 19(1) of the Act, stipulates that the juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence under such law. Further, as noted hereinabove, Section 19(2) of the Act contemplates that the Board must pass an order directing that all the relevant records relating to such a conviction, be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or within a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.
9. In the present case, the record reveals that the Juvenile Justice Board had acquitted the petitioner for the offence in question and, therefore, this was even otherwise, not a case of conviction for any offence. It is also noteworthy that Section 21 of the Act prohibits publication of the name of the "juvenile in conflict with law", the underlying object of the said provision being to protect a juvenile from any adverse consequences on account of the conviction for an offence, committed as a juvenile.
10. Given the aforesaid position, the contention of the respondents is that petitioner was under an obligation to have disclosed the information relating to the pendency of the criminal case against him in respect of an incident that had taken place when he was all of twelve years, would run contrary to the very spirit of the Act. Keeping in mind the fact that the object of the Act is to ensure that no stigma is attached to a juvenile in conflict with law, in our view, once the juvenile has been extended a protective umbrella under the said enactment, there was no good reason for the respondents to have insisted that the petitioner ought to have disclosed the information relating to the allegations against him pertaining to an offence that was committed during his childhood where he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, and subsequently acquitted. We may add here that even when police verification in respect of the petitioner was being conducted on the directions of the respondents, the concerned police officials ought to have refrained from revealing the information pertaining to the petitioner in the case in question, since he was a juvenile at that point in time. This was in fact a gross breach of confidentiality contemplated under the Act.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 18 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 11th May, 2017, is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from today along with all the consequential benefits, excluding backwages." (Emphasis added).
5.13. In Rahul Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"10...The proviso to Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 clearly enumerates that plea of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case. The High Court, however, did not consider and decide the prayer of juvenility raised on behalf of the appellant.
11. There are catena of decisions of this Court which hold that the plea of juvenility, even if not taken before the trial Court or the High Court, can be raised before this Court.
XXX
13. In the case of Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 , this Court directed the concerned Sessions Court to inquire regarding the age of the accused as per law, even though, he had crossed the age of 50 years and his appeal against conviction was rejected by this Court taking into consideration the aspect regarding the determination of plea of juvenility at the belated stage..."
5.14. In view of the above, the Screening Committee's decision cannot be allowed to override the findings of the trial court, which acquitted the applicant.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.10.2024 cancelling the candidature of the applicant, ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLAN2026.02.27 10:42:44 I +05'30' 19 Item No. 38 O.A. No. 4542/2024 Court No. IV along with the show cause notice dated 15.04.2024, 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 (Exe.) in Delhi Police and, if he is otherwise found eligible and suitable, 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 junior was appointed, while actual monetary benefits shall accrue from the date of his joining.
6.4. 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)
/as/
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLAN2026.02.27
10:42:44
I +05'30'