Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deepak vs Home Affairs on 27 February, 2026
1
Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No.2626/2025
This the 27th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Deepak Roll No. 2201067190
aged about 25 years
S/o Mr. Krishan
R/o Village & Post Office - Kasni, District - Jhajjar,
Haryana - 124109
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Setu Niket)
Versus
1. Union of India Through Secretary (Home) Ministry of
Home Affairs North Block New Delhi-110001
2. Delhi Police Through Commissioner of Police Delhi
Police Headquarters Behind Parliament Street Police
Station New Delhi-110001
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment, Delhi
Police Lines Kingsway Camp New Delhi-110009
4. Staff Selection Commission Through its Chairman
Northern Region Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road New Delhi-110003
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)
2026.03.12
SNEHA
16:07:59
MEENA
+05'30'
2
Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025
ORDER (ORAL)
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 seeks the following reliefs:-
"A. Call for records of the case; B. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2025;
C. Direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicant in the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) Male & Female under EWS category with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay etc; D. Award cost of the proceedings: and E. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had applied for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) Male & Female in Delhi Police Examination, 2022, pursuant to the notification dated 08.07.2022 issued by the Staff Selection Commission. 2.1 The applicant, being eligible, applied under the EWS category before the last date i.e. 29.07.2022. It is submitted that the applicant appeared in the computer-based examination held on 28.10.2022, and 2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 3 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 upon declaration of result on 30.12.2022, the applicant was declared qualified for the further stages of recruitment including PET/PST and Trade Test. 2.2 Learned counsel submits that during the course of verification of antecedents, it was disclosed by the applicant that he was involved in FIR No. 293/2021, registered at Police Station Sahlawas, District Jhajjar (Haryana) under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.3 It is submitted that the said case arose out of a neighbourhood altercation involving several persons. The applicant was subsequently tried before the competent criminal court and was acquitted vide judgment dated 08.11.2024. He draws attention to the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish the link evidence against the accused persons. The relevant finding recorded reads as follows:
"........The prosecution has completely falled to establish the link evidence In this case. Hence, on this ground also, the accused persons are entitled for acquittal.
17. In the given circumstances, the identity of accused persons vis a vis the offences alleged to be cominitted by them is not proved.
2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 4 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025
18. Furthermore, the possibility of a compromise between the prosecution witnesses and the accused outside the court-room cannot be ruled out, but this court is not to dwell upon surmises and conjectures but has to decide the case on basis of the evidence available on file. Suspicion however grave cannot take place of proof. The golden thread which runs in the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if on evidence adduced, two views are possible, then the one favouring the accused should be adopted. Paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented.
19. In view of the above discussion, the accused persons are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them. Their bail bonds surety bonds furnished on the record are discharged. However, bouis fumished u/s 437-A shall remain binding on him for six months. Fire Be consigned to the record room after due compliance."
2.4 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite such acquittal, the candidature of the applicant was placed before the Screening Committee constituted under Standing Order HRD/12/2022 of Delhi Police, which rejected the candidature of the applicant. The rejection was communicated to the applicant vide order dated 20.05.2025. The relevant para of the same reads as under:-
"Further, you submitted the certified copy of final judgement/order in mentioned Criminal Case on 21.11.2024 and 19.03.2025 and your case was sent to Police Headquarters. In pursuance of the instructions contained in HRD/12/2022, your case along-with documents submitted by you in your claim was placed before the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee examined your case at length and considered and remarked that you are one of main accused who inflicted injury to the complainant with sharp object while other associates severely beat 2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 5 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 him as evident from F.I.R. You were charge-sheeted for rioting, armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon, wrongful restrain, mischief of causing damage and criminal intimidation/threat involving your moral turpitude. Your acquittal was due to compromise between the parties. Your acquittal cannot be considered as "Hon'ble Acquitted" in view of observation of Court in UOI vs Methu Meda. Your involvement in such case shows your violent behavior, bully type nature and propensity to indulge in crime and violence without any fear of laws. A candidate having such conduct and no respect of law cannot be appointed in law enforcing agency and disciplined force like Delhi Police. Hence, you reply to the Show Cause Notice was not found convincing. In view of above, observations of Apex Court in various cases and provisions of Standing Order, a Screening Committee did not find you suitable for appointment in Delhi Police and your case was "Not Recommended"."
2.5 Learned counsel submits that the Screening Committee recorded the following observations:
i. that the applicant was the main accused in the alleged incident, ii. that the offences involved rioting, violence and criminal intimidation, iii. that the acquittal was not an honourable acquittal, and iv. that the conduct of the applicant reflected violent behaviour.
2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 6 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 2.6 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the conclusions recorded by the Screening Committee are contrary to the findings of the criminal court.
2.7 Learned counsel argues that the trial court clearly held that the prosecution failed to establish the case and the acquittal was not merely technical but was based on absence of evidence.
2.8 Learned counsel submits that the Screening Committee failed to consider the judgment of the criminal court in its proper perspective and rejected the candidature of the applicant in a mechanical manner.
2.9 In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:
(i) In W.P. (C) No. 16651/2025 titled Commissioner of Police vs. Vidur, dated 12.12.2025.
(ii) In W.P. (C) No. 2052/2026 titled Union of India & Ors. vs. Ajay Kumar, dated 13.02.2026.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents reiterates the averments made in the counter affidavit 2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 7 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 and submits that the offer of appointment in the Delhi Police is always subject to verification of character and antecedents. The action taken by the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the applicant was stated to be legal, justified, and strictly in accordance with the applicable Standing Orders as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant had admittedly disclosed his involvement in FIR No. 293/2021 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 427 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sahlawas, District Jhajjar, Haryana. The offences alleged against him were serious in nature and pertained to rioting, unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon, wrongful restraint, mischief causing damage, and criminal intimidation. The allegations specifically attributed to the applicant the act of inflicting injury upon the complainant with a sharp weapon while being part of an unlawful assembly. Such offences, it was argued, were inherently violent and involved moral turpitude, thereby reflecting adversely upon the character and antecedents of the candidate.
2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 8 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 3.2 Learned counsel further submtis that in terms of Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, the case of the applicant had been placed before the duly constituted Screening Committee for assessment of his suitability. The Committee had examined the entire record, including the FIR, charge-sheet, the role attributed to the applicant, and the judgment of the trial court. Upon detailed consideration, the Committee had recorded that the applicant was one of the main accused and that the accusations related to serious offences involving violence and use of a sharp weapon. The accused persons had been charge-sheeted for rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon, wrongful restraint, mischief, and criminal intimidation--offences which could not be treated as trivial in nature.
3.3 Learned counsel also contends that the acquittal of the applicant was not an honourable acquittal on merits but was the result of a compromise between the parties. Such an acquittal, according to the respondents, did not amount to a clean exoneration. Reliance is placed upon the 2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 9 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Methu Meda reported as AIRONLINE 2021 SC 854, wherein the following has been held:-
"11. While addressing the question, as argued the meaning of expression 'acquittal' is required to be looked into. The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame' and 'fully acquitted' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Penal Code. It has been developed by judicial pronouncements. In the case of State of Assam & Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, (1972) 7 SLR 44, the effect of the word 'honourably acquitted' has been considered in the context of the Assam Fundament Rules (FR) 54 (a) for entitlement of full pay and allowance if the employee is not dismissed. The Court has referred the judgment of Robert Stuart Wauchope vs. Emperor reported in (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168, in the context of expression 'honourably acquitted', Lord Williams, J. observed as thus:
"The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the Appellant believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the magistrate. Further we decided that the Appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the Appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term "honourably acquitted".
12. In the case of R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 787, it is observed and held by Wanchoo, J., as thus:
"Even in case of acquittal, proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable."
2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 10 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025
13. In view of the above, if the acquittal is directed by the court on consideration of facts and material evidence on record with the finding of false implication or the finding that the guilt had not been proved, accepting the explanation of accused as just, it be treated as honourable acquittal. In other words, if prosecution could not prove the guilt for other reasons and not 'honourably' acquitted by the Court, it be treated other than 'honourable', and proceedings may follow.
14. The expression 'honourable acquittal' has been considered in the case of S. Samuthiram (supra) after considering the judgments of Reserve Bank of India vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994)1 SCC 541, R.P. Kapur (supra), Raghava Rajagopalachari (supra); this Court observed that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing guilt of the accused is on the prosecution, until proved beyond reasonable doubt. In case, the prosecution failed to take steps to examine crucial witnesses or the witnesses turned hostile, such acquittal would fall within the purview of giving benefit of doubt and the accused cannot be treated as honourably acquitted by the criminal court. While, in a case of departmental proceedings, the guilt may be proved on the basis of preponderance and probabilities, it is thus observed that acquittal giving benefit of doubt would not automatically lead to reinstatement of candidate unless the rules provide so."
3.4 Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the applicant had subsequently submitted an application dated 21.11.2024 along with the judgment, which had been forwarded to PHQ vide U.O. No. 14633/Rectt. Cell (SI)/DA-II/NPL dated 18.12.2024 for appropriate consideration. The Screening Committee had again examined the matter in detail and reiterated its findings. It had observed 2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 11 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 that the nature of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the applicant indicated violent behaviour and a tendency to resort to aggression without due regard for the law. Learned counsel argues that a person with such antecedents could not be considered suitable for appointment in a disciplined and law- enforcing agency like Delhi Police, where unimpeachable character, restraint, and respect for the rule of law were essential requirements. 3.5 On the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee and in adherence to the applicable Standing Order, the competent authority had found the applicant unsuitable for appointment and had cancelled his candidature vide letter dated 20.05.2025. Learned counsel submits that the decision had been taken after due application of mind, consideration of all relevant material, and in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Methu Meda. There was neither arbitrariness nor mala fide in the impugned action.
2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 12 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 3.6 Learned counsel for the respondents lastly contends that suitability for appointment, particularly in a uniformed and disciplined force, fell within the domain of the employer and the scope of judicial review in such matters was limited. The applicant, it was argued, did not acquire any indefeasible right to appointment merely on account of selection, and therefore the Original Application deserved to be dismissed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4.1 The limited issue which arises for our consideration is whether the discretion exercised by the Screening Committee, in terms of Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, in declaring the applicant "Not Recommended," is based on objective assessment of material on record or whether it suffers from non- application of mind and mechanical reliance upon the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-sheet. 4.2 There is no dispute that the case of the applicant was placed before the Screening Committee. The Committee recorded the following observations:
2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 13 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 i. The candidate was one of the main accused who inflicted injury upon the complainant with a sharp object while other associates severely beat him, as evident from the FIR.
ii. The accused were charge-sheeted for rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon, wrongful restraint, mischief causing damage and criminal intimidation/threat involving moral turpitude.
iii. The acquittal of the candidate was due to compromise between the parties.
iv. The acquittal of the candidate could not be considered as "honourable acquittal" in view of the observations of the Court in Union of India v.
Methu Meda.
v. The involvement of the candidate in such case showed violent behaviour, bully-type nature and propensity to indulge in crime and violence without fear of law.
vi. A candidate having such conduct and no respect for law could not be appointed in a law-enforcing agency and disciplined force like Delhi Police.
2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 14 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 vii. His reply to the show cause notice was not found convincing.
viii. On the basis of the above observations, and referring to the judgments of the Apex Court and the provisions of the Standing Order, the Screening Committee did not find the candidate suitable for appointment in Delhi Police and marked his case as "Not Recommended."
4.3 While it is settled that the Screening Committee is empowered to assess suitability independently and is not strictly bound by the findings of the criminal court, such discretion must be exercised objectively, reasonably, and upon due consideration of the entire material on record. The Committee cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the criminal court nor ignore the reasoning recorded therein.
4.4 In the present case, the applicant was acquitted by the competent criminal court vide judgment dated 08.11.2024. A perusal of the trial court judgment indicates that the prosecution failed to establish link evidence against the accused persons and failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial 2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 15 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 court observed that the matter cannot be decided on surmises and conjectures but only on the basis of legally admissible evidence. It reiterated the well-
settled principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. The golden thread running through criminal jurisprudence is that where two views are possible on the evidence, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to prevent miscarriage of justice.
4.5 In our considered view, the Screening Committee appears to have primarily relied upon the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet without adequately adverting to the reasoning recorded by the criminal court. The conclusion that the acquittal was not honourable has been drawn by mechanically applying the ratio of Methu Meda without examining the distinguishing factual features of the present case. 4.6 No doubt, in Methu Meda, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the action of the employer in a disciplined force. However, the factual matrix in that case involved offences under Sections 2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 16 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 347/327/323/506 (Part II) and 364A IPC, and the observations therein cannot be applied as a straight- jacket formula to every case of acquittal. Each case must turn on its own facts.
4.7 At the same time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan has clarified that though the expression "honourable acquittal" is not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the nature of acquittal and the reasoning recorded by the criminal court are relevant factors which must be duly considered while assessing suitability. An acquittal after full appreciation of evidence, where the prosecution fails to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, stands on a different footing from a technical or compromise-based acquittal, and the same cannot be ignored without due application of mind.
4.8 Also, in Commissioner of Police v. Vidur decided on 12.12.2025, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:-
"35. The decision affecting public employment must be based on relevant material and must bear a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. Cancellation of candidature despite a clean acquittal, 2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 17 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 in the absence of any adverse material, fails the test of reasonableness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
36. We are of the considered view that the entire process culminating in the cancellation of the respondent's candidature was arbitrary, mechanical, and legally flawed. The decision failed to meet the constitutional standards of objective assessment, proportionality, and judicious exercise of discretion.
CONCLUSION:
37. In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to grant an appointment to the respondent as Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police with effect from the date on which other candidates from the same recruitment process were appointed. The respondent shall not be entitled to back wages for the period during which he did not serve; however, he shall be entitled to all other consequential service benefits, including the notional fixation of pay, seniority, and increments, from the date on which the other candidates of the same batch joined the service as Constable (Executive).
38. We, therefore, find no infirmity or illegality in the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal.
39. Accordingly, the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal is upheld, and the petition, along with the pending application is dismissed.
40. The petitioners shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of this Order.
41. There shall be no order as to costs."
4.9 The mere fact that certain witnesses were declared hostile cannot automatically lead to an inference adverse to the applicant, particularly when the trial court, upon appreciation of the entire evidence, has recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case.
2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 18 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 4.10 We are conscious of the fact that disciplined forces require high standards of integrity and conduct. However, such standards must be assessed on legally sustainable material and not on mere allegations which have failed to withstand judicial scrutiny. 4.11 In these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned decision reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion and does not disclose proper application of mind to the findings recorded by the criminal court. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is liable to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 rejecting the candidature of the applicant is set aside.
5.1 The respondents are directed to issue an offer of appointment to the applicant, subject to his fulfilling all other eligibility conditions. 5.2 The respondents shall complete the aforesaid exercise and issue the offer of appointment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2026.03.12 SNEHA 16:07:59 MEENA +05'30' 19 Item No.79/ C-IV O.A. No.2626/2025 5.3 It is clarified that the applicant shall not be entitled to back wages. However, notional consequential benefits shall follow in accordance with law.
6. The Original Application stands allowed in the above terms. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
7. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sm/
2026.03.12
SNEHA
16:07:59
MEENA
+05'30'