Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Saurabh vs Delhi Police on 5 February, 2026
1
Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 4329/2024
Reserved on:- 14.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 05.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Saurabh
Roll No.: 2230032056
Recruit Ct. (Ex.) in Delhi Police,
Aged about 24 years
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar
R/o VPO: Asiaki, P.S.: Rohrai,
Distt.: Rewari,
Haryana - 123035
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
Versus
1. Delhi police
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Chairman, Screening Committee
Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001.
3. DCP (Recruitment)
NPL, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi-11 0009
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Awanish Kumar)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.06
10:20:33
NI +05'30'
2
Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024
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:-
"1. To call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the impugned SCN dated 27.03.2024 and order dated 18.10.2024, as well as 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, as the applicant is still unemployed.
2. To award costs in favour of the applicant and to pass any 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 applicant is aggrieved by the impugned orders whereby his candidature for the post of Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police was cancelled solely on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case (FIR No. 227/2020 dated 22.05.2020 PS Pataudi, Gurugram, Haryana), despite the fact that he was honorably acquitted by the competent court for want of evidence. 2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had made truthful disclosure of the said criminal case at the time of filling up the application form and, being fully aware of such disclosure, the respondents permitted him to participate in all stages of the recruitment ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 3 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV process including written, physical, medical and interview/personality test and even provisionally selected him. Learned counsel added that once the competent court, after appreciating the entire evidence, found no incriminating material against the applicant and extended the benefit of acquittal, all stigma attached to the criminal case stood obliterated, and the respondents could not sit in appeal over the judgment of the Trial Court by re-assessing the nature or gravity of the offence or the manner of acquittal. 2.2. Learned counsel argued that the respondents have failed to point out any adverse material regarding the applicant's character or antecedents apart from the disclosed case, and the denial of appointment after provisional selection amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power, a violation of the principles of natural justice, and an infringement of the applicant's fundamental rights.
2.3. Learned counsel further emphasized that mere involvement in an FIR or the gravity of the sections invoked cannot be grounds to deny appointment once acquittal has attained finality, particularly when the relevant service rules do not treat involvement in a criminal case as a disqualification, and such rejection would unjustly punish the applicant for allegations that the prosecution itself failed to prove.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 4 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV 2.4. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the following case laws:-
(i) Joginder Singh v. Union of India (2015) 2 SCC 377 (Hon'ble Supreme Court)
(ii) Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
O.A. No. 4696/2024, decided on 31.10.2025 (CAT, Principal Bench)
(iii) Commissioner of Police v. Amit W.P. No. 8314/2025, decided on 15.07.2025 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court)
(iv) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Jai Prakash W.P. No. 3566/2010, decided on 24.05.2010 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court)
(v) Union of India v. Jagdamba W.P. No. 6152/2015, decided on 02.07.2015 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court)
(vi) Commissioner of Police v. Vidur W.P. No. 16651/2025, decided on 12.12.2025 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court)
(vii) Jitendra Lawaniya v. Union of India & Ors. O.A. No. 4858/2024, decided on 16.12.2025 (CAT, Principal Bench).
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 5 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV 2.5. Learned counsel further highlighted the Trial Court judgment dated 29.02.2023, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
"10. After going through the case file and hearing the learned APP for the State and learned defence counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences attributed to them. As per the prosecution version, on 22.05.2020, the accused attacked the complainant Atul and also criminal intimidated the complainant with dire consequences of his life. To prove these facts, the prosecution has examined the material witnesses PW-2 to PW-6, i.e., the complainant, injured and eye-witness but the witnesses has not supported the prosecution version even to an inch, as PW-2 to PW-6 has deposed during their examination-in-chief that the accused present before the Court are not the ones who threatened to kill them with dire consequences of life, nor gave beatings to them or attack them on fateful day. As such, the very star witnesses examined by the prosecution were declared hostile on the request of the learned APP for the State and further, despite lengthy cross-examination by the learned APP for the State, no incriminating evidence has been brought on record against the accused by the prosecution. Hence, when the identity of the present accused persons has not been established on record by way of any evidence, then the accused persons cannot be held guilty for the commission of offences attributed to them, because nothing favourable could be brought on file by the prosecution from the cross- examination of the prosecution witness and the onus remained unestablished before the Court.
11. In view of the above discussion and findings, it can be safely said that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and they deserves to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Rohit, Saurabh, Lalit, Vikash, Sahil and Brajesh are hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after expiry of the stipulated period of filing of revision/appeal. System Officer is directed to delete the names of the sureties from the CIS and documents, if any, of the sureties be also return after expiry of the period of appeal or revision. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned action cancelling the candidature of the applicant is legal, valid and fully justified, ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 6 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV as the reply submitted by the applicant to the show cause notice was found to be unsatisfactory and unconvincing. Thereafter, the matter was duly examined by the Screening Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 and the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. v. Mehar Singh, (CA No. 4842/2013, State of M.P. & ors. Vs. Parvez Khan(CA No. 10613/2014), Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Ors., (CA No. 67/2018) and Union of India v. Methu Meda (Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 2021).
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was involved in a criminal case registered vide FIR No. 227/2020 dated 22.05.2020 at Police Station Pataudi, District Gurugram (Haryana), under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 341 and 506 IPC, and although he was subsequently acquitted, such acquittal was only on account of prosecution witnesses turning hostile and on benefit of doubt, and cannot be treated as an honorable acquittal. 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 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 7 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV the overall suitability of the candidate. 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.
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. In short, such an exercise should always be undertaken by the respondents on a case to case basis.
5.3. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 8 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV for the effective adjudication of the present matter, it is necessary to examine it in the light of Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 issued by the Delhi Police. The relevant extract of the said Standing Order is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
"3. IN CASE OF DISCLOSURE OF INVOLVEMENT/ARREST/ ACQUITTAL/DISCHARGE ETC. IN CRIMINAL CASE (A) If a candidate had disclosed his/her acquittal/discharge/conviction etc. in criminal case(s), complaint case(s) etc. in the Attestation form, the Appointing Authority after obtaining the information of appeal/revision against the acquittal/discharge etc. shall issue show cause notice for the cancellation of his/her candidature before final decision in the matter.
(B) On receipt of candidate's reply, complete case may be sent to PHQ to assess the suitability for appointment in Delhi Police by the Screening Committee. From the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Mehar Singh, Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar, it is clear that 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 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 9 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 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 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 10 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 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 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 11 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 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 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.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 12 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 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 SecurityAct/Crime Control Act/any similar legislation and the same is confirmed by the Reviewing Authority. Note: All special or local Acts where there is a provision of enhanced punishment for subsequent offences. Above list is not exhaustive, Screening Committee shall consider any other cases/provision in any other law which may be relevant to the facts."
5.4. Applying the aforesaid Standing Order to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the FIR registered against the applicant was FIR No. 227/2020 dated 22.05.2020 at Police Station Pataudi, District Gurugram (Haryana), under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 341 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 147, 149 and ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 13 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV 325 of IPC are categorized as serious offences involving moral turpitude.
5.5. The Screening Committee, while assessing the applicant's suitability, noted that Section 147, 149 and 325 of IPC involves serious offences. However, the Committee was required to exercise its mandate in a reasoned and contextual manner, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the extent of the candidate's involvement, and the overall suitability for the post. The Committee's observations that the acquittal was "technical" or due to witnesses turning hostile or due to benefit of doubt cannot be applied mechanically without examining the actual facts of the case, the contents of the judgment, and the veracity of the complainant's statements.
5.6. A careful perusal of the Trial Court judgment dated 29.02.2023 makes it abundantly clear that the acquittal of the applicant was not on account of any compromise or technical lapse attributable to the accused, but on a complete failure of the prosecution to establish the identity and involvement of the accused persons. The Trial Court categorically recorded that the material witnesses, including the complainant and eye-witnesses, did not support the prosecution case even to an inch, failed to identify the accused, and no incriminating evidence could be brought on record despite extensive cross- ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 14 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV examination. The very foundation of the prosecution case having collapsed, the applicant was acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 5.7. In such circumstances, the mere use of expressions such as "witnesses turned hostile" or "benefit of doubt" in the judgment cannot, by itself, lead to the inference that the acquittal was not honorable in substance. What is required to be examined by the Screening Committee under Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022 is not the label attached to the acquittal, but the reasoning and factual findings recorded by the criminal court. In the present case, the Trial Court has clearly found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused and their role in the alleged incident, thereby completely negating the applicant's involvement. 5.8. We find that while the Screening Committee has correctly noted the sections under which the FIR was registered, it has failed to meaningfully engage with the findings of the Trial Court or the extent of the applicant's actual involvement as mandated under the Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022. The assessment appears to have proceeded primarily on the gravity of the sections invoked in the FIR, rather than on an objective evaluation of whether any material existed to show culpability, propensity, or adverse antecedents of the applicant.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 15 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV 5.9. It is also not in dispute that the applicant had made a truthful disclosure of the criminal case. There is no allegation of concealment or suppression of material facts on his part. 5.10. While the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra), Pradeep Kumar (supra) and Methu Meda (supra) undoubtedly recognizes the authority of the employer to assess suitability, such power is neither absolute nor mechanical and must be exercised on a case-to-case basis. The said judgments do not lay down that every acquittal following a trial would disentitle a candidate from appointment, irrespective of the facts and findings recorded by the criminal court. The discretion vested in the Screening Committee must be exercised judiciously, proportionately, and with due application of mind to the factual matrix of each case.
5.11 In W.P.(C) No. 19316/2025 along with CM APPL. No. 80636/2025, The Commissioner of Police & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar, decided on 16.01.2026, the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:--
"43. It is also apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court inKrishan Kumar v. Director General, CISF & Ors., 2024:DHC:8775-DB, wherein it was held as under:
"In the present case, as noted above, the criminal case against the petitioner had concluded nearly five years prior to his application for appointment with the respondents. The case arose out of a family dispute and was amicably settled among the family members at the very initial stage. At the time of the incident, the petitioner was only 19 years of age.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 16 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV He has an entire life ahead of him and cannot be made to suffer lifelong consequences for a minor and isolated incident, assuming his involvement at all.
In these peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondents failed to apply their mind to the relevant considerations while passing the impugned order. The said order is, therefore, arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The penalty of termination imposed upon the petitioner is wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of non-disclosure of a criminal case which had already been closed at least five years prior to his application. Although one course available to this Court would be to remand the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration of the punishment, we do not deem it appropriate to adopt that course in the present case, particularly since the petitioner has remained out of employment for almost twelve years. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages.
With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of."
44. Although the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court inAvtar Singh (supra), a holistic reading of the said decision does not advance the petitioners' case. On the contrary, the principles crystallised therein reinforce the respondent's case. The Apex Court has unequivocally held that there is no inflexible or mechanical rule mandating the cancellation of candidature in every case of non- disclosure of criminal antecedents. It has further held that each case must be examined on its own facts, keeping in view the nature of the offence, the age of the candidate at the time of the incident, the time elapsed since the occurrence, the outcome of the criminal proceedings, and the suitability of the candidate for public employment. The relevant extracts are quoted hereinbelow:
"30.The employer is given "discretion" to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 17 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in service.
31. Coming to the question whether an employee on probation can be discharged/refused appointment though he has been acquitted of the charge(s), if his case was not pending when form was filled, in such matters, employer is bound to consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects, overall conduct of employee including the accusations which have been levelled. If on verification, the antecedents are otherwise also not found good, and in number of cases incumbent is involved then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases, it would be open to the employer to form opinion as to fitness on the basis of material on record. In case offence is petty in nature and committed at young age, such as stealing a bread, shouting of slogans or is such which does not involve moral turpitude, cheating, misappropriation, etc. or otherwise not a serious or heinous offence and accused has been acquitted in such a case when verification form is filled, employer may ignore lapse of suppression or submitting false information in appropriate cases on due consideration of various aspects.
32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non- disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.
33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 18 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV forged documents, as observed in M. Bhaskaran case9, it has also been observed in the reference order that if an appointment was procured fraudulently, the incumbent may be terminated without holding any inquiry, however, we add a rider that in case employee is confirmed, holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry has to be held before terminating the services. The case of obtaining appointment on the basis of forged documents has the effect on very eligibility of incumbent for the job in question, however, verification of antecedents is different aspect as to his fitness otherwise for the post in question. The fraudulently obtained appointment orders are voidable at the option of employer, however, question has to be determined in the light of the discussion made in this order on impact of suppression or submission of false information.
34.No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
37. The "McCarthyism" is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 19 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 20 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11.Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
39. We answer the reference accordingly. Let the matters be placed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on merits."
45. The argument advanced by the petitioners that the present case is distinguishable from Mahendra Solanki (supra) on facts does not impress this Court. The underlying principle laid down therein is that the employer must adopt a balanced and proportionate approach and cannot proceed solely on the basis of technical suppression, particularly where the candidate has been acquitted and has subsequently made a voluntary disclosure. Furthermore, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners also do not come to their aid and cannot be pressed into service in the facts of the present case.
46. Keeping in view the observations made in the aforesaid judgments and upon examining the present case from all angles, including the nature of the offences involved, the acquittal of the respondent and the nature of the post for which the respondent applied, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be dismissed."
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 27.03.2024 and the consequential order dated 08.10.2024 cancelling the candidature of the applicant are hereby quashed and set aside.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.06 10:20:33 NI +05'30' 21 Item No. 88 O.A. No. 4329/2024 Court No. IV 6.2. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Constable (Ex.) and, if the applicant is otherwise found eligible to issue an appropriate offer of appointment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.3. The applicant shall be entitled to notional seniority and other consequential benefits from the date his immediate junior was appointed, while actual monetary benefits shall accrue from the date of joining.
6.4. 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)
/as/
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.06
10:20:33
NI +05'30'