Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Neeraj Kumar vs Delhi Police on 15 January, 2026
1
Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 4925/2024
Reserved on:- 07.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 15.01.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Neeraj Kumar
S/o Shri Dayaram,
R/o Village -Bhartiya Ka, Post-Bajna,
Tehsil-Mant, PS-Naujheel, Distt.-Mathura,
Uttar Pradesh - 281201.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Ms. Rhea Verma with Ms. Kavita
Chaturvedi)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New Building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment,
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi - 110009.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Arvind Kumar)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.01.16
11:42:53
NI +05'30'
2
Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024
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:-
"(i) Direct the Respondents to set aside and quash order dated 22.10.2024 and grant appointment to the Applicant w.e.f. the date when others who had participated in the examination and succeeded, were granted appointment;
(ii) Direct the Respondents to award all consequential benefits, including back wages, continuity of service, seniority, arrears of pay, fixation of pay at par with other similarly placed, to the Applicant; and
(iii) Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a duly selected candidate for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male, who successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process and truthfully disclosed his involvement in a criminal case leading to registration of FIR No. 31/2021 against him at PS - Naujheel, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. The said case culminated in a clear acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 07.03.2024, the relevant portion of which, reads as under:
"31. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear with analysis of aforesaid evidence and appropriate disclosure that the prosecution side has failed in proving all the charges leveled against accused persons Neeraj, Ajay and Satish. Therefore the accused persons Neeraj, Ajay and Satish are liable to be acquitted/discharged from the charges of offence leveled in case by Police Station ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 3 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV Nauhjheel, District Mathura which are punishable U/s 323, 325, 336 and 506 Indian Penal Code."
2.1. Highlighting the aforesaid, learned counsel argued that despite such acquittal, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 21.03.2024 questioning the applicant's suitability solely on account of his past involvement in the criminal case. The applicant submitted a detailed reply explaining the circumstances of the case, the trivial nature of the dispute, and the judicial findings exonerating him. However, disregarding the acquittal, the respondents mechanically cancelled the applicant's candidature vide the impugned order dated 22.10.2024, giving rise to the present Original Application.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law, Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, and settled judicial precedents governing recruitment to a disciplined force like Delhi Police. The candidature of the applicant was examined objectively after issuance of a Show Cause Notice and due consideration of his reply by the duly constituted Screening Committee. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was found involved in FIR No. 31/2021 registered under Sections 323, 325, 336 and 506 of the IPC at PS Nauhjheel, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, and the said involvement was duly ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 4 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV examined by the Screening Committee while assessing his suitability for appointment. Learned counsel added that appointment to a law enforcing agency demands a higher standard of integrity and suitability considering the nature of duties involving maintenance of law and order, handling of arms and ammunition, and protection of life and property of the public. The Screening Committee, while assessing the suitability of the applicant, took into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of acquittal, and the overall antecedents of the applicant. The acquittal in the criminal case was not a clean acquittal but one based on benefit of doubt, as the prime prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and therefore the applicant cannot claim an automatic right to appointment.
3.2. Learned counsel argued that it is a settled position of law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. v. Mehar Singh (CA No. 4842/2013), State of M.P. & Ors. v. Parvez Khan (CA No. 10613/2014) and Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. (CA No. 67/2018), that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle a provisionally selected candidate to appointment in a sensitive post like police service. The employer has the right to independently assess the suitability of the candidate on the basis of antecedents ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 5 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV and overall conduct. In the present case, the Screening Committee found the applicant's reply to the Show Cause Notice not convincing and observed that the nature of allegations reflected a propensity to violence, rendering him unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force. It is denied that the respondents have acted arbitrarily, whimsically, or in violation of principles of natural justice.
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.
5.3. Upon a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 6 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV for the effective adjudication of the present matter, it is necessary to examine the same 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 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 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 7 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV 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 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 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 8 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV 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' 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.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 9 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV
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 Property Sections-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 Marriage Sections-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 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 10 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV
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 Security Act/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 was registered against the applicant under Sections 323, 325, 336 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of the said offences, Section 325 IPC squarely finds mention in Annexure 'A' appended to Standing ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 11 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV Order No. HRD 12/2022, under Indian Penal Code Chapter-16:
Offences Affecting the Human Body.
5.4.1. The offence under Section 325 IPC, therefore, falls within the category of serious offences involving moral turpitude, as contemplated under Clause (F) read with Annexure 'A' of Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022.
Consequently, the candidature of the applicant was required to be subjected to heightened scrutiny by the Screening Committee.
5.4.2. It is also pertinent to note that there is no allegation of mala fide or bias against the respondents in the decision- making process. Further, there is no allegation of any procedural lapse in the constitution or functioning of the Screening Committee while assessing the suitability of the applicant in accordance with the prescribed Standing Order. 5.5. Although the applicant has been acquitted in the criminal case, such acquittal was on account of the prosecution witnesses not supporting the case. The same cannot be equated with an honorable acquittal. The Standing Order itself clarifies that acquittal on benefit of doubt/compromise/witnesses turning hostile does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment, particularly where the offence involved is one enumerated in Annexure 'A'. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 12 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV 5.6. It has also been vehemently contended that the invocation of Section 344 of the CrPC against the witnesses by the Court of competent jurisdiction itself demonstrates that the applicant has been falsely implicated, and therefore the same ought to be read in his favour. Upon considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, we observe that the action taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 344 of the CrPC was undertaken in light of the following observations recorded by the Court itself:
"32. On the say of villagers false case got registered by complainant of this case and by appearing before the Court statement against the facts as stated in First Information Report has been given by complainant of this case, and it has been stated that the incident of beating (maarpeet)/assault with cudgel-stick of any type with complainant of case and his mother Urmila Devi has not been committed by accused persons Neeraj, Ajay and Satish, nor brick-stone pelted on them by accused persons and nor the threat of killing with life has been extended to them. Therefore false statement has been given by him in the Court. Therefore, it would be just and proper to proceed case under the provisions of Section 344 Cr.P.C. against complainant of the case."
5.7. In these circumstances, the Screening Committee was well within its jurisdiction to independently assess the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of acquittal, and the overall antecedents of the applicant. Upon due consideration, the Committee found the applicant unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police. Such assessment cannot be termed as arbitrary, mechanical, or unreasonable.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30' 13 Item No. 77 O.A. No. 4925/2024 Court No. IV 5.8. It is well settled that this Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Screening Committee unless the same is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or in violation of statutory provisions. In the present case, the decision has been taken strictly in accordance with Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 and thus no ground is made out for interference.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, the present O.A. is dismissed.
6.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/ ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:53 NI +05'30'