Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vivek Deshwal vs Delhi Police on 18 December, 2025
1
Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.4974/2024
Order reserved on 11.12.2025
Order pronounced on 18.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Vivek Deshwal
S/o Sh. Ravinder Singh
R/o H. No. V-559/11fa, Gali No. 14, Vijay Park,
Maujpur, Delhi - 110053
Aged about 29 years
(Candidate for the post of Constable (Driver) in
Delhi Police)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters (New Building)
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi - 110001
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment
Cell)
New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi - 110052
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Y.P. Singh)
SURAJ BISHT
2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30'
2
Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure A11) along with the impugned show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure A12); and
(b) Direct the respondents to forthwith consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Driver) Male; and
(c) Accord all consequential benefits including monetary and seniority benefits;
(d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
(e) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."
2. The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the candidature of the applicant was cancelled on the ground that a criminal case is filed against the applicant vide FIR No.101/2018 dated 06.05.2018 u/s 279, 337, IPC PS IP Estate, New Delhi. However, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the name of the applicant is not in the said FIR. It is SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 3 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 further contended that, as per the FIR, the driver involved in the accident was described as being approximately 5'8" in height and around 30 years of age. In contrast, the applicant, even assuming for argument's sake that he was involved in the incident, was only about 23 years old at the relevant time. An affidavit has been produced in record (Annexure A-6), highlighting the following:
"6 I state that upon my complaint dt. 26.04.2018, the SHO, PS. IP Estate registered an FIR No. 101 dt. 06.05.2018 u/s 279/338 IPC, PS- IP Estate. It is a matter of fact that after passage of more than a year and a half i.e only after filing of the DAR I found out that the local police had shielded the actual driver (since he was serving somewhere in Delhi Police itself) and in fact arrested some unknown person who was never present on the date of the accident i.e. one Vivek Deshwal S/o Sh. Ravinder Singh R/o V-605A, Gali No. 14, Vijay Park, Maujpur, Delhi-: 110053 on 07.05.2018.
7. I state that during the pendency of investigation (after several months of the accident) I was asked to come and join investigation by the local police and after making me wait for more than an hour I was informed that the Accused is not coming today to join investigation. After passage of a few days I was once again called to join investigation, however, the local police told me that the Accused is unavailable even today.
8. I state only after filing of DAR i.e. after a lapse of more than a year and a half I upon perusal of the DAR noticed that some person has been named as an Accused in the present case without any identification by me nor any intimation to me in the past. It is worthwhile to mention that the local police left no stone unturned in order to shield the actual Driver and in fact have also shown my name as a witness on the Arrest Memo, although it is a matter of fact that I never joined investigation on the alleged date of 07.05.2018 as also that I never identified the so called Accused person- Vivek Deshwal as I very well know that it is not him who was driving on the date of incident rather it SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 4 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 was a man aged about 30 years, however, the accused- Vivek is only 23 years old and much different in appearance compared to the description given by me. *********
10. It is a matter of fact that the person driving the vehicle as reported by me was about 5'8" and aged about 30 years, however, the person arrested by the Police is aged only 23 years and it is also a matter of fact and record that I never identified any such person as the Driver of the car from the date of the incident. I had also sent several text messages and WhatsApp messages to the IO-HC Jaswinder Singh (PIS No. 28902479) on 18.11.2019 on his mobile no. 9999333397 and to the SHO, PS- I.P. Estate on his mobile number 8750870426 from my mobile number 7827121372 wherein I had stated that... "The SHO/IP ESTATE, DELHI Sir, I have sent the Following Request to the Concerned I.O. Mr Jasvinder Singh ji For proper Enquiry in the matter on 18/11/2019, Dear Sir, On my complaint, case FIR NO.101/2018 was regd. At PS I.P. Estate. From the very beginning there was some reluctance in the regn. Of the case. Before and after the registration, there was pressure from the police personnel and on behalf of the accused not to pursue forregn. Of the case. The statements of myself and Mr. Subhash Chand who was accompanying me at the time of accident, were recorded. As desired by Mr. Jasvinder Singh, the I.O., I had, about a year back, sent the original X-rays, prescription slip of the Hospital and X- rays reports, all in original, to the I.O. in a Khaki envelope through Sh. Subhash Chandwho works in my office as I was not keeping well and because of fractures in my hand and foot His statement was also recorded by the IO. and all original documents were taken into possession. For the past few months I am being pressurised to sign the papers changing the name of the accused which is not possible and also not legally tenable. 2/3 days back the I.O. and another ASI came to my office for getting the papers signed. I asked for the copy of the seizure memo and copy of Insurance policy of the vehicle with which accident was done (for which I have been requesting him since the time the documents were handed over to him by Sh. Subhash Chand) but the I.O. stated that the documents are not with him. i request you to: Immediately trace the papers and give me copy of the seizure memo and copy of Insurance Policy of the vehicle; ii) complete the investigation in a fair and proper manner and send the case to Court; I have explained the position to the I.O. and other police officials who contacted/visited me in the past and beyond that I have nothing to say/add.".
*********** SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 5 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024
12. I further state that it is a matter of fact and record that there was a substantial delay in filing of DAR i.e. after a lapse of more than 18 months. The said delay was purely due to the Police pressurizing me to stop pursuing the present case and to dissuade me from pursuing the case against the actual driver who was working in Delhi Police. The delay in filing DAR by the local police was also in order to shield the actual driver of the car who was driving the vehicle on the date of the accident, since he was working with Delhi Police.
13. I state that it was only in Court that I first time noticed that the person named as Accused as per the DAR is not the actual Driver and in fact he is some unknown person. It is also a matter of fact that this driver- Vivek Deshwal came and introduced himself to me on 20.12.2021 outside the court and said that I was driving the vehicle on the date of the incident and I took you to the hospital. It was only now that I found out about the fact that some other person i.e. other than the actual driver has been named as an Accused/Driver in the present case. Therefore, I immediately informed my erstwhile counsel about the same."
2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further drew our attention to Annexure A/8, wherein the FIR No.101/2018 dated 06.05.2018 registered at PS IP Estate under Section 279/337 IPC and Final Report dated 21.08.2019 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 10.04.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents justified the stand of the respondents by stating that the Screening Committee has taken a holistic view based on the decision rendered in Union of India vs. Methu Meda (AIRONLINE 2021 SC 854). He further submitted that a SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 6 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 criminal case FIR No. 0101 /2018 dated 06.05.2018 u/s 279/337 IPC PS IP Estate, Delhi was registered on the complaint of Sh. Jitender Kumar Mittal alleging therein that on 24.04.2018 at about 11:30 AM he was going on foot towards Metro Station, ITO. One fast moving car bearing Regn. No. DL-2C AW 9816 came and hit him. The driver tried to fled out but public and one Sh. Subhash Chand stopped him. The height of driver was about 5"8". The driver and another person in the car took them to Kosmos Hosptial, Anand Vihar, Delhi. The applicant was charge-sheeted u/s 279/337 IPC and charge sheet was filed on 21.08.2019. The said FIR was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 10.04.2023 due to settlement between the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.8751/2021 dated 29.01.2025 titled Anita vs. Commissioner of Police.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record as well SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 7 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 as the records of the Screening Committee produced by the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. A perusal of the records and the case law cited reveals that there is a very fine distinction in the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding concealment of material information or non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, such as an FIR and its status, particularly in the context of appointments to disciplined forces like the Delhi Police. What must be considered is whether the non-disclosure was fatal in the circumstances of the case, taking into account factors such as the gravity of the alleged offence(s), whether there was an acquittal simpliciter or an acquittal by the Hon'ble Court, whether the case involved giving the benefit of doubt, the applicant's age at the time of the alleged offence, the place of the crime, and the applicant's social background. In the present matter, the case pertains to mistaken identity rather than an acquittal by the Hon'ble Court, as highlighted above.
SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 8 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 6.2. What requires examination is whether the present case involves concealment or voluntary disclosure by the applicant prior to his appointment/joining. It is evident that the disclosure was made voluntarily and accordingly, it cannot be characterized as concealment. Moreover, no independent inquiry was conducted by the respondents to verify the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations recorded in the FIR against the applicant.
6.3. In the case of Commissioner of Police & Anr. v. Ramanuj Upadhyay (W.P.(C) 3926/2012) decided on 9th July 2012, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as follows:
"4. In view of Standing Order No. 371/2011 issued by Commissioner of Police, Delhi, the case of such a candidate as the respondent, where the criminal case was pending investigation or pending trial, the candidature is to be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the case. After the court's judgment if the candidate is acquitted or discharged, the case is to be referred to the Screening Committee of the Police Headquarters to assess his suitability for the appoint in the Delhi Police.
5. This procedure, which has been prescribed in the said standing order, had been followed. Subsequently, the respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court in Allahabad by an order dated 21st April, 2010. In the said order, it has been clearly held that the respondent, who was one of the accused in that case, was not involved in the said incident at all. It has been noted that on a careful analysis of evidence SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 9 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 and facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be established by the prosecution that the accused, which included the respondent herein, were involved in the alleged acts. Consequently, by virtue of the said order dated 21st April, 2010 all the accused including the respondent Ramanuj Upadhyay were acquitted of all charges.
6. In view of the fact that the respondent had been acquitted in the said criminal case, his case for appointment was sent before the Screening Committee in view of the said guidelines prescribed in the said standing order. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 25th April, 2011 wherein it has been mentioned that the Screening Committee had examined the case of the respondent in detail and had not approved his case for appointment in the Delhi Police. It has been pointed out in the show cause notice that the Screening Committee while considering the case of the respondent, kept in view the attending circumstances, nature of offence, contents of FIR, nature of injuries, type of weapon used, judgment, grounds of acquittal and the role attributed to the respondent in the offence.
7. On receiving the said show cause notice, the respondent submitted his reply on 3rd May, 2011 wherein he has specifically stated that he had been clearly acquitted by the Trial Court and therefore, the factum of his name being mentioned in the same FIR could not be held against him. However, disregarding the plea taken by the respondent in his reply, the Dy. Commissioner of Police passed an Order dated 16th June, 2011 whereby the candidature of the respondent was cancelled. The cancellation order specifically indicated as under:-
"All his written and oral submission in details have been considered and found that the candidate was named in FIR for his involvement in a violent agitation/rioting, damaging public property, assaulting, causing simple/grievous injuries to public servant as well as press reporters and doing an act amounting to attempted culpable homicide. Such act is highly undesirable. His mob mentality and indulging in violent activities without fear of law of land renders him unsuitable for SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 10 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 appointment in Delhi Police where the highest standards of discipline are maintained. As such, the candidature of the candidate Ramanuj Upadhyay, Roll No. 727227 for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police, 2009(Phase-I) is hereby cancelled with immediate effect."
8. It is obvious from the facts as indicated above that the sole reason as to why the respondent's candidature has been cancelled was the fact that his name found mention in the said FIR. We have, time and again, reiterated that once a person has been acquitted in a criminal case, the factum of his name being mentioned in FIR cannot stand in the way of his employment with the Delhi Police. Here, we find that although the respondent had been clearly acquitted after a full fledged trial by the Trial Court, the petitioner still took into account the fact that his name has been mentioned in the FIR and concluded that, he had been involved in the alleged incident. This course of conduct is clearly untenable. It was open for the Screening Committee and for that matter the petitioner to have rejected the candidature of the petitioner on some other valid ground based on some other inquiries made by them but they could not have cancelled the candidature of the respondent solely on the ground that the petitioner's name found mentioned in the said FIR which culminated in an acquittal by the criminal court.
9. In view of the foregoing, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal whereby the cancellation of the candidature has been quashed.
10. As we have directed in the case of Devender Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in WP(C)No. 8731/2011 decided on 30 th March, 2012 and several other similar matters, the petitioner is directed to issue an appointment letter to the respondent within four weeks subject to his otherwise being fit and completing all necessary formalities and requirements. The respondent would be entitled to seniority as well as pay and allowances from the date he joins the service. We, however, direct that the impugned order with regard to costs is set aside. Subject to these modifications, the Tribunal's order is upheld and the writ petition, to that extent, is dismissed. There is no order as to costs."
SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 11 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 6.4 It is also important to note that, under the Delhi Police Rules, prior involvement of a person in a criminal case does not, by itself, constitute a disqualification for appointment. While it is true that Rule 6, which enumerates the grounds for ineligibility, does not specifically list criminal antecedents, it would be unreasonable to conclude that instances of moral turpitude, however grave, can be disregarded merely because they are not expressly mentioned in Rule 6. Furthermore, Standing Order No. 398 and HRM/12/2012, issued by the Delhi Police, empower the police authorities to take appropriate decisions in such cases. The Standing Order sets out the policy for dealing with candidates provisionally selected for the Delhi Police who are involved in criminal cases,whether they are facing trial or have been acquitted. It is, therefore, appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the said Standing Order:
"The purport of STANDING ORDER NO. 398
/HRM/12/2022- POLICY FOR DECIDING CASES OF CANDIDATES PROVISIONALLY SELECTED IN DELHI POLICE INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL CASES (FACING TRIAL OR ACQUITTED).
During the recruitments made in Delhi Police,several cases come to light where candidates SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 12 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 conceal the fact of their involvement in criminal cases in the application Form/Attestation Form in the hope that it may not come to light and disclosure by them at the beginning of the recruitment process itself may debar them from participating in the various recruitment tests. Also the appointment if he/she has been acquitted but not honourably.
In order to formulate a comprehensive policy, the following rules shall be applicable for all the recruitments conducted by Delhi Police:-
1).xxx xxx xxx
2).xxx xxx xxx
3).If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal cases, complaint case, preventive proceedings etc. and the case is pending investigation or pending trial, the candidature will be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the case. After the court judgment, if the candidate is acquitted or discharged, the case will be referred to the Screening Committee of the PHQ comprising of Special Commissioner of Police/Administration, Joint Commissioner of Police/Headquarters and Joint Commissioner of Police/Vigilance to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police.
4) If a candidate had disclosed his/her involvement in criminal case, complaint case, preventive proceedings etc. both in the application form as well as in the attestation form but was acquitted or discharged by the court, his/her case will be referred to the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police.
5).xxx xxx xxx
6). Such candidates against whom charge-sheet in any criminal case has been filed in the court and the charges fall in the category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though later acquitted or acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or the witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person, he/she will generally not be considered suitable for government service. However, all such cases will be judged by the Screening Committee of PHQ to assess their suitability for the government SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 13 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 job. The details of criminal cases which involve moral turpitude may kindly be perused at Annexure
-A
7) Such cases in which a candidate had faced trial in any criminal case which does not fall in the category of moral turpitude and is subsequently acquitted by the court and he/she discloses about the same in both application form as well as attestation form will be judged by the Screening Committee to decide about his/her suitability for the government job.
8) xxx xxx xxx
9). If any candidate is discharged by extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 this will also not be viewed adversely by the department for his/her suitability for government service.
10). 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.
6.5. Clause 3 of the Comprehensive Policy delineated in the Standing Order is the relevant material for adjudication of the present case. It refers to the Screening Committee comprising high police officers. After a candidate, who has disclosed his involvement, is acquitted or discharged, the Committee has to assess his/her suitability for appointment. 6.6. Clause 6 states that those against whom serious offences or offences involving moral turpitude are registered and who are later on acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or because the witnesses have turned SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 14 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person shall not generally be considered suitable for government service. However, all such cases will be considered by the Screening Committee manned by senior officers.
6.7. Clause 10 states that 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.
6.8. In our opinion, the word generally indicates the nature of discretion. As a matter of rule, such candidates have to be avoided. Exceptions will be few and far between and obviously must be substantiated with acceptable reasons.
6.9. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 15 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such persons involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. The object appears to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force. 6.10 However, in the present case, the due process has not been properly followed, as the respondents have failed to consider their own Standing Orders No. 398/HR/12/2022 in the proper perspective, particularly clause 3. Notably, the offences alleged in the FIRs against the applicant do not fall within the SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 16 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 scope of serious offences or constitute "moral turpitude" sufficient to justify denial of employment. In any event, the proceedings against the applicant have been quashed, and it is a case of mistaken identity as determined by a competent court.
6.11. To summarize, the present case concerns mistaken identity and does not involve any serious or grave offence. The Screening Committee appears to have overlooked this aspect and reached its conclusion solely based on the observations in Medu Meda (supra).
"I have deceived even your very eyes... how you were brought into the orchard and saw me court Margaret in Hero's garments, how you disgraced her when you should marry her." (Borachio confessing his plot to frame Hero) Much Ado About Nothing - Shakespeare's play
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, we allow the present OA, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order(s), restoring the applicant's selection, and directing the respondents to issue an offer of SURAJ BISHT 2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30' 17 Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024 appointment to the applicant, if otherwise found suitable and fulfilling the eligibility and other requisite conditions, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
7.2. It is clarified that the applicant shall not be entitled to any consequential benefits, including seniority or any notional benefits, in the peculiar facts of the case.
7.3. 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)
/sb/as/
SURAJ BISHT
2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30'