Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Harikesh Singh vs Delhi Police on 30 April, 2026
1
Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 308/2025
Reserved on : 10.04.2026
Pronounced on: 30.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Harikesh Singh (EWS)
Roll No. 3002000575
Recruit Ct. (Ex.) in Delhi Police,
Aged about 24 Years
S/o Sh. Vikram Singh
R/o Vill: Gwalara,
PS/PO/Tehsil : Gabhana,
Distt : Aligarh, UP-202136
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Delhi police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-11 0001.
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 Advocates: Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. P. K. Singh)
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:11:57
ANI +05'30'
2
Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(1) To call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the impugned SCN dated 18.09.2024 and Order dated 16.12.2024, and the proceedings of the Screening Committee on the basis of which the impugned orders were passed; and to direct the respondents to issue a letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of CT (Ex.) with all consequential benefits including seniority/promotion and arrears of pay, since the applicant is still unemployed.
(2) To award costs in favour of the applicant and pass any other order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present Original Application arises from the impugned order dated 16.12.2024, whereby the candidature of the applicant for appointment as Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police has been rejected on the basis of his alleged involvement in criminal cases, despite his subsequent acquittal in FIR No.50/21 and FIR No.138/22 registered at PS, Gabhana, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents had earlier issued a show cause notice dated 18.09.2024 to the applicant calling upon him to explain his involvement in the said criminal cases, to which the applicant duly responded by placing reliance on his acquittal and asserting his eligibility for appointment; however, the same was not considered in its proper perspective while passing the impugned order. 2.2. Learned counsel contended that once a person has been acquitted by a competent criminal court, the stigma attached to the allegations stands obliterated, and in the absence of any other adverse material relating to his ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 3 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV character or antecedents, denial of appointment solely on this ground is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the following case laws in support of the OA, to contend that mere involvement in criminal cases or acquittal therein cannot be a ground to deny public employment, particularly when no adverse material regarding character or antecedents exists:
(i) Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 1430/2007.
(ii) State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.
(iii) Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996) 2 SLJ 9 (SC).
(iv) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramashankar Raghuvanshi, 1983 SCC (L&S) 263.
(v) Matadeen Garg v. State of Rajasthan, SLP No. 15234/1988.
(vi) Municipal Committee, Jaitu v. Gulab Singh, 2003 (3) SCT 1011.
(vii) Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police and ors., 2023 (302) DLT 46.
2.4 Learned counsel drew our attention to the judgment dated 06.08.2022 in Cr. Case No. 50/2021 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 01, Aligarh, and the judgment dated 01.04.2024 in Cr. C. No. 138/2022 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh, respectively. The relevant portions of the said judgments are reproduced as under:
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 4 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV "judgment dated 06.08.2022 ....From the prosecution side is examined witness PW-1 Abhishek was examined, who has stated in his Examination in Chief in his evidence that dated 14.03.2021 time about 14 hours evening village persons Ravi Karan, Baini, Ram babu, Vikram son of shrichand and Yash Deepak, Harikesh and 8-10 other unknown persons reached to petitioner house with lathi danda, and used abusive and filthy language from among them one person fired upon us. We people saved our life by hiding in house. These people threatened to kill by life and ran away. In relation to the incident written complaint filed written which is proved as Exhibit A-1.
The witness in his cross examination stated that on the day of incident out of my house many people gathered there an they were arguing with each other. I was standing there and seeing the whole incident after some time pushing throwing started between them and someone had fired. At the place of incident it was dark due to this reason I have not been able to see the person who has fired. Ravi Karan, ram Babu. Vikram singh had not fired and nor made abusive and filthy languages and caused beating and threatening to kill by life.
This witness is declared as Hostile witness. Permission grand to cross examine him. In the cross examination argument stated that Darogaji has not taken any of my statement. The witness were read over statement made under section 161 Cr. P. C. heard it to this witness said how it is written, I cannot tell its reasons.
From the prosecution side is examined witness PW-2 Rambir was examined, who has stated in his Examination in Chief in his evidence that I live in the village of Abhishek, but at the day of incident I was not present at the place of incident. I was going to my plot/field. I heard the noise, many people. gathered there. I reached later on. I have not seen Ravi Karan, Ram babu, Vikram causing beating and fighting with Abhishek e.t.c and threatening to kill by life and neither any fire was made there. This witness is declared as Hostile witness. Permission granted to cross examine. In the cross examination stated that Darogaji has not taken any of my statement. The witness was read over statement made under section 161 Cr. P.C, heard to which witness said how it was written I cannot tell its reason.
From the prosecution side is examined witness PW-3 suresh Pal was examined, who has stated in his Examination in Chief in his evidence that I live in the village of Abhishek, butat the day of incident I was not present at the place of incident.
I was going to my plot/field. I heard the noise, many people gathered there. I reached later on. I have not seen Ravi Karan, Ram babu, Vikram causing beating and fighting with Abhishek e.t.c and threatening to kill by life and neither any fire was made there. This witness is declared as Hostile witness Permission granted to cross examine. In the cross examination stated that Darogaji has not taken any of my statement. The witness was read over statement made under section 161 Cr. P.C. heard to which witness said how it was written I cannot tell its reason.
From the prosecution side is presented the witness the petitioner of the case who himself has not supported the prosecution statement. The petitioner of the case Abhishek himself and other witnesses in there ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 5 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV statement stated that the accused persons has not caused any beating fighting with him nor used abusive and filthy language nor threatened to kill by life.
The prosecution has not examined any other witness who can support the case incident. The witness has clearly denied. any type of incident cause against him by accused persons. On the basis of witness. evidence prosecution failed to prove there statement beyond reasonable doubt and on the basis of witness statement the accused persons Ravi Karan, Rambabu, and Vikram Singh in the present case there is not sufficient ground for conviction.
In this way on the basis of above all investigation I reached to this conclusion that the prosecution side has not presented any such type of witness which can prove the charges. framed by the court against accused persons Ravi Karan, Ram babu and Vikram Singh under section 323, 504, 506 IPC to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused persons Ravi Karan, Ram babu and Vikram Singh is liable for acquittal from the charges under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC.
ORDER The accused persons Ravi Karan, Ram babu and Vikram Singh charged in the present case under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C is acquitted from the charges. The accused persons are on bail. There bail bond and personal bond are cancelled and there sureties are acquitted from there liability. The accused persons is expected under section 437A of Cr. P.C, 1973 to give personal bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-and same amount of one-one surety of this intention be presented that whenever they were called against this judgment in appeal instituted/filed and summoned by the Appellate court they will remain present at the mention date and time of place of Appellate Court."
"judgment dated 01.04.2022 ...On the earlier fixed date both parties have filed agreement for compounding of offence in Cr. C. No. 138/2022 under section 323,325, 504, 506 IPC at police station Gabhana, which was filed after permission granted by the Hon'ble Court, which was certified in the Court in presence of both parties along with the respective counsel presence. According to Section 320(1) according to it Section 323,204,506 I.P.C is compoundable by that person whom injury has been caused, intimidation given and section 325 IPC. Section 320(2) according to it is compoundable by that person whom grievous injury is caused Thereafter, petitioner of the case and victim are major and competent to do the contract. After obtaining the permission from the Hon'ble Court. As such in the light of agreement dated 28.02.2024 in Cr. C. No. 138/2022 under Section 323,325,504,506 IPC, section 320 IPC is liable to be Compoundable.
ORDER The Cr. C. No. 138/2022 the petitioner of case Ajeet Pratap Singh, Victim Satendra Pratap Singh and accused persons Harikesh and Deepak between them agreement held on its basis offence is ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 6 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV compounded. The accused persons Harikesh and Deepak is acquitted in Cr. C. No.138/2022 under Section 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC.
File consigned to record room as per rules."
2.5. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 5009/2024 titled Rampur Gurjar vs. Commissioner of police, specifically upon para 2.3, 2.4, 3.1 and 6.4. to 6.9. The said paras, read as under:
"2.3 Prior to the recruitment process, the applicant was implicated in two criminal cases of a trivial nature arising out of personal and village disputes, namely FIR No. 97/2015 and FIR No. 756/2017, both registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC.
2.4 In FIR No. 97/2015, the applicant was given a clean acquittal pursuant to a lawful compromise before the Lok Adalat vide judgment dated 12.12.2015, and in FIR No. 756/2017, wherein the matter was amicably settled and, pursuant to the compromise, the applicant was given a clean acquittal.
3.1. Learned counsel contended that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a provisionally selected candidate to appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police, and the Screening Committee is vested with the authority to independently assess the antecedents, nature and gravity of the offence and the overall suitability of the candidate. The Screening Committee, after examining the nature, gravity and circumstances of both criminal cases, found that the applicant was involved in incidents of abuse and physical assault, that the acquittals were based on compromise before Lok Adalat/trial court and could not be treated as "honourable acquittals", and that the applicant exhibited a violent and aggressive tendency rendering him unsuitable for police service. It was further argued that the respondents have not sat in appeal over the judgment of the Trial Court but have only exercised their administrative discretion to assess suitability, as mandated under the Standing Order. Since the Screening Committee did not recommend the applicant's case, the show cause notice was rightly issued to the applicant and the candidature was cancelled by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
6.4. Applying the aforesaid Standing Order to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the FIRs registered against the applicant were under Sections 294, 323, 325 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of Annexure 'A' appended to Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022 shows that offences under Sections 294 and 325 of IPC are categorized as serious offences involving moral turpitude. 6.5. However, merely because certain sections invoked in the FIRs fall within the categories mentioned in Annexure 'A' to Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022, the same cannot be treated as determinative or conclusive against the applicant. The Standing Order itself mandates a nuanced, case-specific assessment, requiring the Screening Committee to examine not only the sections invoked but also the nature and extent of involvement, the circumstances leading to the case, the manner of acquittal, and the overall suitability of the candidate.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 7 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV 6.6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicant made a full and truthful disclosure of both criminal cases in the attestation form. There is also no allegation of suppression on his part. Both criminal cases arose out of village-level disputes and culminated in acquittal on the basis of lawful compromise, one before the Lok Adalat and the other by the learned Trial Court. The Lok Adalat judgment dated 12.12.2015 specifically records that all offences were compoundable in nature, that the compromise was voluntary, and that there was no previous conviction against the applicant.
6.7. While it is correct that acquittal on compromise does not automatically amount to an "honourable acquittal", the law equally requires that such acquittal cannot be mechanically branded as adverse without examining whether the allegations disclose any continuing propensity, criminal intent or conduct incompatible with public service. The Screening Committee, in the present case, has drawn sweeping conclusions regarding the applicant being violent and likely to repeat similar actions in future, without any supporting material, prior criminal antecedents, or subsequent conduct to substantiate such apprehension. 6.8. We find merit in the contention of the applicant that the conclusions arrived at by the Screening Committee are largely conjectural and based on surmises rather than on an objective evaluation of the record. Apart from the two FIRs in question, which stand concluded in acquittal, there is no material to suggest that the applicant has any criminal tendency or that his conduct thereafter was unbecoming of a candidate for public employment.
6.9. In the facts of the present case, the offences arose nearly a decade ago, were rooted in local disputes, stood compounded in accordance with law, and have not been followed by any adverse conduct on the part of the applicant. The applicant successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process on merit. In such circumstances, branding the acquittals as determinative of unfitness, without balancing mitigating factors, results in a disproportionate and arbitrary outcome."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, as the candidature of the applicant has been rightly cancelled by a reasoned and speaking order dated 16.12.2024 in accordance with Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 governing character and antecedent verification in Delhi Police. The applicant was found involved in two serious criminal cases, namely FIR No.50/2021 (U/S 147/148/504/307 IPC, PS Gabhana, Aligarh) and FIR No.138/2022 (U/S 395/323/504/506 IPC, PS Gabhana, Aligarh), wherein the offences involve moral turpitude and serious allegations of violence, and though he was acquitted, the Screening ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 8 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV Committee, after due consideration of antecedents and nature of offences, found the acquittal not to be honorable and the candidate unsuitable for disciplined force like Delhi Police.
3.1. 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 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 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 the allegations reflected a propensity to violence, rendering him unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force.
4. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the submissions made in the Original Application and further relied upon the following case laws:
i) Joginder Singh vs. UT, (2015) 2 SCC 377
(ii) GNCTD vs. Jai Prakash, W.P. No. 3566/2010, decided on 24.05.2010
(iii) UOI vs. Jagdamba Singh, W.P. No. 6152/2015, decided on 02.07.2015
(iv) Devender vs. GNCTD, W.P. No. 4225/2012, decided on 14.05.2013
(v) Vidur vs. Commissioner of Police, O.A. No. 426/2019, decided on 08.07.2025 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 9 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1.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.
6.2. 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.
Needless to say, such as assessment should be done by the respondents on a case to case basis.
6.3. 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 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 ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 10 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV 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 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. ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 11 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV 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 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.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 12 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV
2. Indian penal code chapter-6 Offences against the State Section-121 to 130.
3. Indian penal code chapter-7 Offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air force Section-131 to 134.
4. Indian penal code chapter-8 Offences against Tranquility Section-143-149, 153-A & B.
5. Indian penal code chapter-11 False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice Sections-193 to 216-A.
6. Indian penal code chapter-12 Offences relating to Coin and Government Stamps Sections-231 to 263-A.
7. Indian penal code chapter-14 Offences relating to Decency & Moral Sections-292 to 294-A.
8. Indian penal code chapter-15 Offences relating to Religion Sections-295 to 297.
9. Indian penal code chapter-16 Offences Affecting the Human Body Sections-302 to 304, 304-B, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 312,313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 347, 348, 354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D,363 to 373, 376 to 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-E,377.
10. Indian penal code chapter-17 Offences against PropertySections-379 to 462.
11. Indian penal code chapter-18 Offences relating to Documents and to Property Marks Sections-465 to 489.
12. Indian penal code chapter-20-A Offences relating to MarriageSections-498-A. In cases relating to marriage i.e. 498-A/406 IPC and dowry prohibition act, the candidate may be debarred if he/she is 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.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 13 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV
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." 6.4. Applying the aforesaid Standing Order to the facts of the present case, it is evident that two FIRs, i.e., FIR No. 50/2021 (U/S 147/148/504/307 IPC, PS Gabhana, Aligarh) and FIR No. 138/2022 (U/S 395/323/504/506 IPC, PS Gabhana, Aligarh), were registered against the applicant. A perusal of Annexure 'A' appended to Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 indicates that certain sections such as 147, 148, 307 and 395 IPC are categorized as serious offences involving moral turpitude. However, it is equally relevant to note that mere invocation of such sections in the FIR cannot be treated as determinative of the applicant's guilt or suitability, particularly when the ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 14 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV subsequent course of investigation and trial resulted in dilution of charges and eventual acquittal. In the present case, the applicant was not ultimately tried or convicted under the more serious offences, and the cases culminated either in acquittal on account of lack of evidence or lawful compromise between the parties. Therefore, the assessment of suitability ought not to rest solely on the initial sections invoked in the FIR, but must take into account the final outcome of the proceedings, the nature of allegations as ultimately established, and the overall circumstances of the case. 6.5. On perusal of the report of the Screening Committee, , which has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondents along with the order dated 16.12.2024, we find that the observations of the Screening committee are also in terms of the offence u/s 395 whereas the applicant was charge sheeted u/s 323, 504, 506, 325 of IPC and the matter was settled between both the parties and the offences were of comoundable nature. The relevant portion of the said observations of the Screening Committee as well as relevant portion of order dated 16.12.2024, read as under:
Case-2 Case-2
➤ Harikesh Singh (Candidate)
alongwith co-accused assaulted the
complainant and snatched Rs.
41,000/- from complainant.
FIR No: 138/2022 Dated: 04.05.2022 ➤ The candidate alongwith other co-
U/s: 395/323/504/506 IPC accused was charge sheeted u/s
PS: Gabhana, Aligarh, U.P. 323/504/506/325 IPC.
Complainant: Sh. Ajit Pratap Singh ➤ Matter was settled between both
the parties, and same was allowed by
Ld. trial Court being compoundable
offences.
➤ It seems witnesses have been won
over.
Gist of FIR: On 01.05.2022, while he was ➤ Acquittal cannot be considered as
returning from his maternal uncle's village with honorable.
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:11:57
ANI +05'30'
15
Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025
Court No. IV
Case-2 Case-2
cousin by taking Rs. 41,000/- cash. On the way, he filled petrol in his bike where Harikesh and other co-accused saw the money in his hand and started chasing his motorcycle. At around 7:30 PM, when he reached near BSNL Tower, they stopped his bike and Harikesh snatched the money. Thereafter, they hit through fists and kicks and ran away from the spot.
Charge sheet: The candidate alongwith other co- ➤ Nature and gravity of offences are accused was charge sheeted u/s 323/504/506/325 serious in nature involving moral IPC. turpitude.
➤ His reply to the Show Cause Notice is not found convincing.
In view of above, observations of Apex Judgment/Court Order: The case was decided on compromised basis by the Hon'ble Court vide its Court in various cases and provisions order dated 01.04.2024. of Standing Order, Screening Committee did not find the candidate suitable for appointment in Delhi Police and his case is Not Recommended.
"Order dated 16.12.2024 "During completion of codal formalities, you filled up the Attestation Form on 30.01.2024 and disclosed your involvement in criminal case vide FIR No. 138/2022, dated 04.05.2022 u/s 395/323/504/506 IPC PS- Gabhana, Aligarh, UP. On receipt of police verification report from SP/Aligarh, you were found involved in two criminal cases vide FIR No.
(i) 138/2022, dated 04.05.2022 u/s 395/323/504/506 IPC PS-Gabhana, Aligarh, UP & (ii) 50/2021, dated 15.03.2024 u/s 147/148/504/307 IPC PS-Gabhana, Aligarh, UP &. Hence, your case for concealment of facts of your involvement in 2nd criminal case was examined by the competent authority and decided that your case may be placed before the Screening Committee to examine your suitability for the post in question."
6.6. It cannot be lost sight of that the applicant has been acquitted in both the criminal cases. The law is fairly well settled that while acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment, the nature of acquittal, surrounding circumstances, and overall antecedents are required to be evaluated in a holistic and objective manner. 6.7. In the present case, a perusal of the record reveals that in FIR No. 138/2022, though initially serious sections including Section 395 IPC were invoked, the applicant was ultimately charge sheeted under Sections ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 16 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV 323/504/506/325 IPC, and the matter culminated in a lawful compromise between the parties, which was duly accepted by the competent court. The offences, therefore, assumed the character of compoundable offences and stood settled in accordance with law. Similarly, in FIR No. 50/2021, the acquittal has resulted on account of failure of prosecution evidence. 6.8. The observations of the Screening Committee, however, appear to have been influenced predominantly by the initial invocation of serious sections and generalized assumptions such as "witnesses having been won over" and the acquittal not being "honourable", without adequately examining the actual role attributed to the applicant, the final outcome of the trial, and the absence of any subsequent adverse conduct. Such an approach does not fully align with the requirement of a nuanced and case-specific assessment as mandated under Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022. 6.9. We also find merit in the contention that the Screening Committee has not sufficiently balanced the mitigating factors in favour of the applicant, including the fact that both cases have concluded, the offences in one case were compounded, and there is no material on record indicating any continuing criminal propensity or antecedents beyond the said incidents. The conclusions drawn, therefore, appear to be somewhat broad and not entirely supported by a comprehensive evaluation of the record. 6.10. In this context, guidance can be drawn from the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vikram Ruhal vs.Delhi Police and ors., (supra) and Rampur Gurjar vs. Commissioner of police (supra) wherein it has been emphasized that cases arising out of personal disputes, ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 17 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV culminating in acquittal, particularly on the basis of compromise or lack of evidence, ought not to be mechanically treated as indicative of unfitness, and the Screening Committee is required to undertake a balanced and reasoned assessment rather than proceed on presumptions.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the foregoing discussion, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present Original Application with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to place the case of the applicant before the Screening Committee for fresh consideration, strictly in accordance with Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022, uninfluenced by the earlier observations and conclusions, and after taking into account the nature of acquittal, surrounding circumstances, and the principles laid down in Rampur Gurjar (supra) and Vikram Ruhal (supra).
7.2. The Screening Committee shall undertake an objective and reasoned assessment of the applicant's suitability and pass a speaking recommendation. Based on the same, the competent authority shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. In the event the applicant is found suitable and fulfilling all other eligibility criteria, he shall be issued an offer of appointment. If appointed, the applicant shall be entitled to notional seniority and all consequential benefits from the date his immediate junior was appointed; however, actual monetary benefits shall accrue only from the date of his joining.
ANKI ANKIT SAKLANI T 2026.05.
SAKL 04 11:11:57 ANI +05'30' 18 Item No. 76 O.A. No. 308/2025 Court No. IV 7.3. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7.4. With the above directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also disposed of. 7.5. The Court Officer is directed to return the original record to the learned counsel for the respondents, against due receipt and proper acknowledgement.
7.6. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
SAKL 04
11:11:57
ANI +05'30'