Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Neeraj vs Govt. Of Nctd on 12 February, 2026
1
Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2711/2019
Reserved on :- 29.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 12.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
NEERAJ, Age-24+ Years
Group-C, Appointment : Constable(Exe)
Roll No.2201020531
S/o Sh. Tirath Singh,
R/o-VPO- Kansala, District Rohtak,
Haryana-124406.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCTD through
the Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCTD,
Naya Sachivalaya,
I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate,
M.S.O. Building, New Delhi
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police;
Recruitment,
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Comp, Delhi-9
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh
Charak with Ms. Priya Shukla)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.13
11:08:09
NI +05'30'
2
Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
1.1. The applicant participated in the selection for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police in the year, 2016 and was successful in different stages of the selection process and his name was placed in the provisional list of selected candidates.
1.2. The applicant was falsely implicated in a criminal matter arising out of FIR No. 290/2015 u/s 148/149/324/302/212 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, PS/PGIMS (Haryana) dated 05.10.2015. Although there were five accused in the said FIR, the applicant was charged only under Section 212 of the IPC. The applicant disclosed the fact of his implication in the above FIR in the Attestation Form which he had filled up in the year, 2018 and further disclosed that the appropriate Criminal Court had acquitted him vide its judgment dated 26.05.2016, relevant portion of which reads as under:
"7. During investigation, accused Neeraj was arrested under Section 212 IPC and he got recovered motor-cycle No.HR12R- 4064 used in the commission of crime vide recovery memo Exhibit P36. The investigating officer moved an application ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 3 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV Exhibit P12 and took the opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of the injuries. The doctor as per his opinion Exhibit P13 has opined that the injuries on the person of deceased Anil could be caused by the weapon of offence shown to Him. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and after completion of the investigation. final report under Section 173. of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and submitted to the Court against the accused.
9. As per order dated 5.3.2016 passed by this Court, all the accused except accused Neeraj were charged for the commission of offence punishable -under Sections 148, 302 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, whereas accused Neeraj was charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Narender was also additional charged under Section 25 of Arms Act, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
....
19. So far as the recovery of ice picks and knife in pursuance of disclosure statement is concerned, in this case, the recovery of the aforesaid articles from the possession of the accused is also doubtful as a perusal of the statement of PW9 HC Ajay Kumar reveals that the place of recovery was an open place and accessible to all. He has further stated that in the memo Exhibit DI to Exhibit D4, HC Patram has appended his signatures after getting the same photocopied. Likewise in Exhibit P26, Exhibit P28 to Exhibit P30, the length of the weapon of the offence has been written afterwards. In Exhibit DS, the name of the accused has been changed after applying white fluid. Likewise, PW10 HC Patrans has admitted that no independent witness was joined despite their ample availability. His signatures have been obtained afterwards and the measurement of the recovered weapon has been written later-on. Since, the place of recovery was an open place, accessible to all and the weapon of offence are common in nature without any distinct mark of identification, the possibility of planting the aforesaid weapon on the accused cannot be ruled out particularly when the eye witness and injured witness have not supported the case of the prosecution.
20. Moreover, the weapons alleged to have been recovered in pursuance of disclosure statements made by the accused Narender Amit and Rajesh but these weapons were not stained with the blood. The position would have been otherwise if the weapon of offence had some blood stains on them and that blood belonged to the deceased which would lead to an inference that the weapons of offences has been used in the murder of Anil. However, in view of the statements made by the complainant/eye witness Sunil and injured witness Dinesh that the accused present in the Court were not the assailants lead to inference that the accused facing trial are not involved in this case. Similarly, recovery of some weapons without any ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 4 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV corroborative piece of evidence showing the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence, the evidence of prosecution is not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of offence so the circumstantial evidence collected by the police during the investigation do not form a chain of facts connecting each fact with another fact.
21. In this case, PW2 Jagbir had identified the dead body of Anil. PW4 HC Pankaj has sent the special report and proved the FIR. PWS HC Sumit Kumar has proved the site plan. PW6 Dinesh who handed over to the police photocopy of attendance register showing the presence of Sunil Kumar and deceased Anil Kumar. However, these are the formal witnesses and do not connect the accused with the commission of offence.
22. The prosecution has also examined PW7 ASI Phool Kumar, but he is a formal witness. Likewise, PW8-Dr. Virender Ahlawat has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Anil Kumar and had found that the injuries on the person of deceased Anil would be caused by weapon of offence shown to him but mere opinion of doctor is not sufficient to fasten the accused with the criminal liability as the weapon of offence did not contain any blood stains over them
23. In this case, since the complainant and injured have not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of the doctors and the witness who prepared the scaled site plan or had investigated the case are formal in nature and their evidence is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. As such, by extending the benefit of doubts, all the accused are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them. Case property, if any be disposed after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. File after compliance be consigned to the record room."
1.3. Learned counsel submitted that despite the aforesaid, acquittal judgment dated 26.05.2016, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the applicant and after obtaining his reply to the said show cause notice, the respondent vide order dated 05.07.2018 on the recommendations of the Screening Committee cancelled his candidature to the post of Constable (Executive)(Male) in Delhi Police. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 5 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV applicant has preferred the present OA praying for the following reliefs:-
"8.1 To quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 05.07.2018 and order dated 5.07.2019 whereby the candidature of the applicant to the post of the Constable (Exe.) is cancelled and to further direct the respondents that applicant be given appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.
or/and Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
1.4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the ground for rejection of the applicant's candidature as outlined in the impugned communication are mere conjectures and assumptions made by the respondents, ignoring the fact that the applicant was acquitted by the Trial Court. He further contended that the Show cause notice would indicate that the respondents had relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No. 4965/2013 by stating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that a candidate for consideration to appointment in a disciplined force must have an impeccable character and integrity and accordingly the respondents have held that on account of criminal antecedents, the applicant does not fit in such category. Learned counsel pointed out that the show cause notice, while quoting the relevant extract of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentions that ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 6 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV the Court had held that even when a person has been completely exonerated the matter has to be examined to see whether he would fit into the disciplined force. Learned counsel highlighted that besides this limited observation, the show cause notice does not indicate, in any manner whatsoever, as to how the applicant has incurred a disqualification for appointment to the post of Constable. 1.5. Learned counsel further stated that in the impugned order dated 05.07.2018, the respondents have merely stated the facts contained in the aforesaid FIR and thereafter, reiterated the judgment of the Apex Court which had been mentioned in the show cause notice. Besides giving reference to few other pronouncements the impugned order specifically mentions, quoting from a Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, that the Screening Committee will be within its right to cancel the candidature, if it finds that acquittal is based on serious flaws or the witnesses turning hostile. The show cause notice has also examined the extent of the applicant's involvement and his propensity to become a cause for worsening the law and order situation. Learned counsel argued that the respondents have merely interpreted this to mean that the applicant is not fit to be appointed in Delhi Police without giving due consideration to the judgment of the Criminal Court, which had specifically ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 7 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV recorded that the accused Mr. Neeraj, i.e., the present applicant was arrested under Section 212 of IPC, during the course of investigation on recovery of a motorcycle, which is alleged to have been used in commission of the crime. Learned counsel stated that besides this observation there is not even a whisper of any other allegations against the applicant and the reference to his name in the judgment of the Criminal Court is only with respect to his being charged under Section 212 of IPC. He has taken us through the judgment dated 26.05.2016 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge submitting that no where in the judgment is recorded a single word of evidence that may have come against the applicant. In fact, in conclusion, the Criminal Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 1.6. Learned counsel highlighted that it is erroneous and perverse to infer that the applicant was involved in an heinous case/crime as has been stated in the impugned order because the only charge against the applicant was under Section 212 of IPC. The said section reads as under:
" 212. Harbouring offender. - Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment, if a capital offence.--shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 8 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV liable to fine;
if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.--and if the offence is punishable with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.
2 ["Offence" in this section includes any act committed at any place out of 3 [India], which, if committed in 4 [India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and every such act shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in 4 [India].] Exception.--This provision shall not extend to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the offender."
1.7. Learned counsel reiterated that the limited evidence even for establishment of his charge is recovery of a motorcycle and nothing else. Accordingly, the Screening Committee has gravely erred in inferring that the acquittal does not make the applicant innocent and that his conduct shows "aggressive nature with a propensity to indulge in crime without fear of law". How this inference has been drawn to further cancel the candidature of the applicant and deny appointment to him is inexplicable. He further submitted that benefit of doubt given by the Trial Court while acquitting all the accused has been read by the respondents in isolation and further they have erroneously ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 9 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV held that such a benefit would not exonerate the applicant. 1.8. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the impugned cancellation of the applicant's candidature suffers from complete non- application of mind and is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court. Despite the Applicant's truthful disclosure and his acquittal dated 26.05.2016 in FIR No. 290/2015, the respondents failed to exercise the discretion mandated in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, which requires an objective, proportionate, and non-mechanical assessment, particularly for entry-level posts such as Constable. The Screening Committee wrongly branded the applicant's case as "heinous" by borrowing the gravity of charges against co-accused under Section 302 IPC, while ignoring that the applicant was charged only under Section 212 IPC, was not named in the FIR, was not present at the scene of occurrence, and that the Ld. Trial Court categorically recorded that there was "not an iota of evidence" against him. A holistic reading of the judgment shows a clean acquittal based on total lack of evidence, and not a mere technical "benefit of doubt," a principle reiterated in Sandeep Singh v. GNCTD, W.P.(C) 5675/2017 (Delhi High Court), Commissioner of Police v. Vidur, W.P.(C) ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 10 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV 16651/2025 (Delhi High Court), and explained by the Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598, and Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023. By ignoring the Trial Court's findings, the applicant's clean antecedents, rural background, and the nature of the post, the respondents acted arbitrarily, rendering the impugned orders violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and liable to be set aside.
2. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the rejection of the applicant's candidature is legal, justified, and in consonance with Standing Order No. 398/2018 as well as HRD Circular No. 12/2022, and is fully supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was contended that the applicant was acquitted only on benefit of doubt and not by a clean or honourable acquittal, and that such acquittal does not confer any vested right to appointment in a disciplined force like the Delhi Police. The Screening Committee, after due and comprehensive consideration of all relevant records, assessed the applicant's suitability in light of his involvement in a heinous criminal case and concluded that his conduct reflected an aggressive nature with a propensity to indulge in crime without fear of law, rendering him ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 11 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV unsuitable for police service.
2.1 It was further emphasized that the police force bears a solemn responsibility of maintaining law and public order and enjoys public confidence, which demands candidates of impeccable character, integrity, and rectitude; even the possibility of criminal tendency undermines discipline and public trust. Reliance was placed on 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) and Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Ors., (CA No. 67/2018) to submit that the employer is entitled to independently assess suitability notwithstanding an acquittal, and that the Screening Committee acted well within its jurisdiction in cancelling the candidature. Accordingly, it was prayed that the O.A. be dismissed as devoid of merit.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
4. ANALYSIS :
4.1. We are of the considered opinion that mere acquittal in the criminal case involving the applicant does not, by itself, ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 12 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV confer upon him an automatic or indefeasible right to be declared fit for appointment to the post in question. 4.2. 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. 4.3. 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 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 13 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV 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.
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 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 14 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV 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 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 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 15 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV 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.
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.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 16 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV
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.
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. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 17 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV
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."
4.4. The charge leveled against the applicant, read as under:
"Fourthly on the said date, time and place, an offence of rioting and murder was committed by accussed Narender, Rakesh, Ankush, Ankit and Amit and you accused Neeraj helped htem by concealing a motor-cycle bearing registration No. HE12$-4064, which was used in the commission of said offence with an intention to screen the offender from legal punishment, you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code and within cognizance of the Court of Session."
4.5. Further, it would be appropriate to quote the statement of PW 12, SI Raj Kumar from the Trial Court judgment dated 26.05.2016, which reads as under:
"He has further deposed that he added Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code in this case and after arresting the accused Neeraj in this case. He also took in possession motorcycle bearing registration No. HR12R-4064 of Hero Honda make as per seizure memo Ex. P36."
4.6. From a conjoint reading of the charge framed against the applicant and the evidence noticed by the Trial Court, it is evident that the applicant was not a mere bystander but was specifically charged under Section 212 IPC for concealing the motorcycle used in the commission of a grave offence of murder, with the intent to screen the principal offenders from legal punishment. The charge itself attributes a conscious act on the part of the applicant, which, by its very nature, has a ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 18 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV direct nexus with a serious and heinous offence, namely murder under Section 302 IPC.
4.7. Though the Trial Court ultimately acquitted the applicant by extending the benefit of doubt, it is well settled that such an acquittal does not ipso facto obliterate the underlying conduct alleged nor does it automatically entitle a candidate to public employment, particularly in a disciplined force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Mehar Singh (supra) has categorically held that even after acquittal, the employer is entitled to examine whether the acquittal is honourable and whether the antecedents of the candidate render him suitable for appointment in the police force.
4.8. In the present case, the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is clearly founded on the failure of the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, largely owing to hostile witnesses and lack of corroborative evidence. The judgment itself records that the benefit of doubt was extended to all the accused. Such an acquittal, by its very nature, falls within the category of acquittal on benefit of doubt, and cannot be equated with a clean or honourable acquittal. 4.9. The contention of the applicant that Section 212 IPC is not a heinous offence cannot be accepted in isolation. As per ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 19 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV Annexure 'A' of Standing Order HRD 12/2022, cases involving abetment, conspiracy, or facilitation of heinous offences are required to be assessed by the Screening Committee keeping in view the nature of the main offence. Concealing the motorcycle used in a murder, with the intent to screen offenders from punishment, has a direct and inseparable connection with the principal heinous crime and cannot be trivialized merely because the applicant was not charged under Section 302 IPC.
4.10. The Screening Committee, in compliance with Standing Order HRD 12/2022, examined the nature and extent of the applicant's involvement, the gravity of the offence, and the manner of acquittal. The Committee formed an opinion that the applicant's conduct reflected a propensity incompatible with the standards of integrity, discipline, and public trust expected from a member of the police force. This Tribunal finds no material on record to conclude that such an assessment was arbitrary, mechanical, or vitiated by non- application of mind.
4.11. The reliance placed by the applicant on Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, does not advance his case. The said judgment itself recognises the right of the employer to assess suitability and clearly holds that even in cases of truthful disclosure and acquittal, the employer may decline ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.13 11:08:09 NI +05'30' 20 Item No. 73 O.A. No. 2711/2019 Court No. IV appointment depending upon the nature of the offence, the manner of acquittal, and the sensitivity of the post. The present case squarely falls within the parameters where the employer is justified in declining appointment after an objective assessment.
4.12. We find that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with Standing Orders, applied the correct legal principles, and passed a reasoned decision. 4.13. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the impugned show cause notice and the order cancelling the candidature of the applicant do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity warranting interference.
5. CONCLUSION :
5.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any merit in the present O.A.s 5.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.13
11:08:09
NI +05'30'