Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shishram Yadav vs Home Affairs on 23 January, 2026
1
Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 251/2025
Reserved on :- 09.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 23.01.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Shishram Yadav,
Roll No. 2407001506,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o Shri Ratiram Yadav,
R/o Dhani Bhagandas Wali,
Post Khera, Teh. Bansur,
Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan - 301402.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Setu Niket with Ms. Esha
Mazumdar)
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
SHILPI
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.01.29 ...Respondents
10:08:55+01'00'
(By Advocate: Mr. Dhananjai Rana)
2
Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
By way of the present O.A. the applicant seeks following reliefs:-
"A. Call for records of the case;
B. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06/12/2024;
C. Direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicant in the post of Constable (Driver) under OBC category with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, seniority, increment 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 submitted that the applicant is a meritorious candidate who participated in the recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for appointment under Delhi Police and successfully qualified all stages of selection including the Computer Based Examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST)/Trade Test and Medical Examination, scoring above the prescribed cut- off marks. During verification, the applicant made a SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA truthful disclosure in his attestation form regarding FIR GUPTA 2026.01.29 10:08:55+01'00' No. 524/2015 dated 02.07.2015 registered at PS 3 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV Kotputli, Jaipur Rural under Sections 143/283/427 IPC, in which he was falsely implicated. The said criminal case culminated in an honorable acquittal after full appreciation of evidence, as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the applicant. Further, learned counsel highlighted para 18 of the Trial Court judgment dated 23.01.2019, which reads as under:
"18. Similarly, both the independent witnesses PD-01 Banshidhar and PD-07 Suresh Kumar examined by the prosecution as witnesses of the incident on the file are hostile and do not support the story told by the prosecution regarding the incident. Also, while the complainant Tarachand states that Arvind, Harshvardhan, Yogesh, Balwant, Khemchand were caught at the scene of the incident, the witness of the incident Amin, on the contrary, states that Abhishek, Surendra, Yogesh, Khemchand, Tarachand were caught and the other police witness PD Devendra states that Ravi, Sanjay, Surendra were caught at the scene of the incident. In this way, the witnesses of the scene of the incident themselves take the names of different persons in the arrest. PD-02 Ajit Singh, despite being a witness to the arrest, states that he does not know from where Shish Ram was arrested and does not recognize Shish Ram, which makes his presence on the facts related to the arrest doubtful. Similarly, PD-03 Balbir also states that he does not recognize the arrested persons Arvind, Balwant, Khemchand, Harshvardhan, Shish Ram, while he claims to be a 'witness to the arrest'. In such a situation, this witness also raises doubts whether he was present at the time of arrest. PD-08 Tarachand, the complainant, himself admits that due to darkness, I cannot tell who blocked the road. I did not see anyone blocking the road. Amin, the witness of the incident spot, also goes further and says that when I reached the spot, the traffic was going on smoothly. When we went on the road, there were no stones lying there. Whereas the complainant states that the road was blocked with stones, Mohammad Amin, who SHILPI accompanied him, states that the traffic was smooth SHILPI GUPTA and there were no stones lying at the spot, which GUPTA 2026.01.29 10:08:55+01'00' shows the contradictory nature of the situation of the spot of both the witnesses. Most of the witnesses have stated that they did not see who threw the stones in 4 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV the incident and who blocked the road. The police witnesses also clearly admit the fact in cross- examination that they do not know who were involved in causing the incident and also refuse to identify them. In such a situation, as per the aforesaid discussion, there is lack of substantial evidence to prove beyond doubt the crime alleged against the accused persons. There is contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. It is a well-established principle of criminal law that the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Therefore, as per the aforesaid discussion of lack of substantial evidence, it appears justified to give the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit them of the alleged crimes under sections 147, 283, 427 IPC and 8B NHA Act."
2.1. Learned counsel argued that despite such honorable acquittal and complete bonafide disclosure, the respondents declared the applicant unsuitable for appointment solely on the basis of the said FIR, without considering the reasoning of the judgment or the settled legal position that an honorable acquittal restores the presumption of innocence.
2.2. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjustified, violative of principles of natural justice, thereby frustrating the applicant's legitimate expectation arising from his successful completion of all stages of the recruitment process, necessitating the filing of the present Original Application.
2.3 Learned counsel for the applicant contended that SHILPI the candidature of the applicant was rejected in a SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.01.29 10:08:55+01'00' mechanical manner, particularly in view of the fact that 5 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV in FIR No. 524 dated 02.07.2015, it was recorded as under:--
"To The Incharge Saheb, Police Station Kotputli, District Jaipur, Subject: For registration of FIR, Sir, on the above subject it is requested that Yesterday on date 01.07.15, I, ASI Tarachand ASI along with Constable Balbir No. 1473, Mohd. Amin Constable No. 431 RAC along with Government Vehicle driven by driver Devendra Singh No. 1620 left for evening patrol and surveillance of miscreants at 08:30 PM. During patrolling at 10:05 PM, information was received from the police station that there is a jam on the Highway near RTM Hotel. When I, ASI and my team reached the spot, we were found that a cow had died on the spot after being hit by an unknown vehicle on the Delhi-Jaipur Highway Road on NH-08 near RTM Hotel. The students of Yadav, Rajput and Gurjar hostels had blocked the road on both sides by throwing stones on the Delhi-Jaipur and Jaipur-Delhi Highway Road. I, ASI and my team tried to pacify them, but the students got agitated over the death of the cow and started shouting slogans against the police and administration. On this, I, ASI informed the SHO. Thereafter, SHO and his team arrived at the spot, who also tried to pacify the protesting students. But the students did not listen and got agitated and started shouting slogans. They were to be caught to prevent further crime, but these students started running away from the spot. The fleeing students pelted stones and broke the windows of several vehicles. Arvind Yadav, Balwant, Harshvardhan Singh, Yogesh Singh Chauhan, Khemchand Gurjar were caught among the fleeing students. They said that Abhishek Yadav, Ravi Yadav, Surendra Yadav, Sanjay Yadav, Devendra Yadav, Yadav, Rakshit Yadav, Surendra Gurjar, Tarachand Gurjar, Sheeshram Gurjar and 8-10 other boys were with us. The above students have obstructed the NH-08 by throwing stones and have disturbed the public and the administration. The protesting students caught on the spot have been brought and the report is presented for legal action. Sd/- Tarachand Sharma, (ASI Tarachand Sharma) Police Station Kotputli, District Jaipur, dated 02/07/15, Action Taken by Office. This is to certify that Tarachand, S/o Shri Laxman Prasad, Caste Brahman, Age 42 years, R/o Attari, P.S. Nadbai Bharatpur present ASI, P.S. Kotputli came in the Police Station and submitted the above report, which was typed on the computer word to word. From the report presented at the police station, the case is found to fall under section 143, 283, IPC 8B NHAI Act. Hence the FIR SHILPI No.524/15 has been registered and the investigation of SHILPI GUPTA the same handed over to Shri Naresh Singh S.I. Sajjan GUPTA 2026.01.29 10:08:55+01'00' Kumar."6 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV 2.4. Further, learned counsel for the applicant highlighted that the charge-sheet itself reveals that the disclosure of the name of the applicant, namely Shishram, was allegedly based only on the statements of certain students stated to be present at the place of occurrence. In this regard, learned counsel specifically referred to and relied upon the contents of the charge- sheet, which read as under:--
"CHARGE SHEET NO.608/15 DATED 27.12.15 SECTION 143, 283, 437 IPC 8B NHAI ACT, IN FIR No.524/15 P.S. KATPUTLI, DISTRICT JAIPUR Sir, the brief facts of the case are that on 02.07.15 Shri Tarachand S/o Shri Laxman Prasad, Caste Brahman, age 42 years R/o Attari P.S. Nadbai Bharaput present ASI, P.S. Kotputli came to the Police Station and submitted a report that on 01.07.15, I, ASI Tarachand ASI along with Constable Balbir No. 1473, Mohd. Amin Constable No. 431 RAC along with Government Vehicle driven by driver Devendra Singh No. 1620 left for evening patrol and surveillance of miscreants at 08:30 PM. During patrolling at 10:05 PM, information was received from the police station that there is a jam on the Highway near RTM Hotel. When I, ASI and my team reached the spot, we were found that a cow had died on the spot after being hit by an unknown vehicle on the Delhi-Jaipur Highway Road on NH-08 near RTM Hotel. The students of Yadav, Rajput and Gurjar hostels had blocked the road on both sides by throwing stones on the Delhi-Jaipur and Jaipur-Delhi Highway Road. I, ASI and my team tried to pacify them, but the students got agitated over the death of the cow and started shouting slogans against the police and administration. On this, I, ASI informed the SHO. Thereafter, SHO and his team arrived at the spot, who also tried to pacify the protesting students. But the students did not listen and got agitated and started shouting slogans. They were to be caught to prevent further crime, but these students started running away from the spot. The fleeing students pelted stones and broke the windows of several vehicles. Arvind Yadav, Balwant, SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA Harshvardhan Singh, Yogesh Singh Chauhan, GUPTA 2026.01.29 Khemchand Gurjar were caught among the fleeing 10:08:55+01'00' students. They said that Abhishek Yadav, Ravi Yadav, Surendra Yadav, Sanjay Yadav, Devendra Yadav, 7 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV Yadav, Rakshit Yadav, Surendra Gurjar, Tarachand Gurjar, Sheeshram Gurjar and 8-10 other boys were with us. The above students have obstructed the NH- 08 by throwing stones and have disturbed the public and the administration. The protesting students caught on the spot have been brought and the report is presented for legal action. On the report FIR No.524/15 under Section 143, 283, 427 IPC 8B NHAI Act was registered and the investigation was handed over to me SI Naresh Singh. During the investigation, During the investigation, on the basis of the map of the place of incident, statements of witnesses, records received from the hostel, arrest of accused, interrogation of neighbours, statements of independent witnesses and evidence available on file, the crime under Sections 143, 283, 427 IPC has been proved against the accused1. Arvind son Rohitash Yadav, Caste Yadav, Resident Shuklakabas, PS Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, 2. Balwant son Ramjilal Yadav, Caste Yadav, Resident Khohri, PS Bansur, District Alwar, 3. Khemchand son Shri Ishwar Ram, Caste Gurjar, Resident Raghunathpura, PS Viratnagar, District Jaipur, 4. Yogesh son Mahipal, Caste Rajput, Resident Dadadvas, PS Mandan, District Alwar, 5. Harshvardhan son Devendra Singh, Caste Rajput, Resident Dandesari, PS Sikandra, District Hathras, U.P. 6. Shish Ram son Ratiram, Caste Yadav, Resident PS Bansur, District Alwar.
Therefore, the Charge Sheet No.608/15 dated 27/12/15 under Section 143, 283, 427 IPC 8B NHAI Act against the accused, Arvind, Balwant, Khemchand, Yogesh, Harshavardhan & above named. Please take appropriate action."
2.5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that, on the face of the record, it is evident from the detailed trial itself that the prosecution was unable to establish either the presence or the manner of arrest of the applicant. It was specifically brought on record by the prosecution witnesses that they were unaware as to how and from where the applicant was arrested. Learned SHILPI counsel further submitted that the applicant was SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.01.29 10:08:55+01'00' acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction and that 8 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV no appeal has been preferred against the said judgment, which has thus attained finality. It was contended that there is no material available on record to establish the presence of the applicant at the alleged place of occurrence, and the implication of the applicant was based merely on hearsay statements of other persons purportedly present at the spot, coupled with non- recognition of the applicant by the prosecution witnesses. It was further pointed out that although the FIR refers to two persons bearing the name "Shishram", namely Shishram Gurjar and Shishram Yadav, only Shishram Yadav was put to trial, despite the ambiguity regarding identity.
2.6. Learned counsel further submitted that the identity of the applicant and even his arrest in connection with the alleged incident were doubtful, as clearly recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the decision rendered by the Screening Committee suffers from arbitrariness and reflects a mechanical exercise of power, without due application of mind to the facts of the case. It was argued that once the very presence and involvement of the applicant were SHILPI found to be doubtful, the question of assessing the SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.01.29 10:08:55+01'00' nature or extent of his involvement does not arise. Even 9 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV otherwise, the nature of the alleged offences does not warrant denial of the applicant's legitimate claim for appointment. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 16651/2025 tilted Commissioner of Police and anr. vs. Vidur.
3. Opposing the grant of the relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant's candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) was lawfully cancelled after due process under Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, as he was found involved in a criminal case (FIR No. 524/2015 under Sections 143/283/427 of IPC) arising from unlawful assembly, obstruction of public way and stone-pelting, and though he was acquitted, such acquittal was only on technical grounds due to prosecution witnesses turning hostile and not an honorable acquittal.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the Screening Committee, after issuing a show cause notice, considering the applicant's reply, and applying its independent mind, concluded that the nature and gravity SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA of the offences, the contents of the FIR, and the GUPTA 2026.01.29 10:08:55+01'00' applicant's propensity to indulge in violence rendered 10 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV him unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police.
3.2. Learned counsel argued that it is a settled position of law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. v. Mehar Singh (CA No. 4842/2013), State of M.P. & Ors. v. Parvez Khan (CA No. 10613/2014) and Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. (CA No. 67/2018), that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle a provisionally selected candidate to appointment in a sensitive post like police service. The employer has the right to independently assess the suitability of the candidate on the basis of antecedents and overall conduct.
3.3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the offences registered against the applicant under the relevant sections of the FIR pertained to unlawful assembly with a common object and carried elements of moral turpitude. It was contended that, keeping this aspect in view, the Screening Committee duly examined the nature of the allegations and their impact on the suitability of the applicant, and upon such SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA consideration, found him unsuitable for appointment.
GUPTA 2026.01.29
10:08:55+01'00'
11
Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV
3.4. In support of his case learned counsel for the respondents strongly relied on Union of India v. Methu Meda, Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 2021, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"21. in view of the aforesaid, it is clear the respondent who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. A person having a criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category. The employer is having right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is completely exonerated because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee and the decision of the Committee would be final unless mala fide. In the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), this Court has taken the same view, as reiterated in the case of Mehar Singh (supra). The same view has again been reiterated by this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra).
22 As discussed hereinabove, the law is well-settled if person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the orders impugned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013 and Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1090 of 2013 are not sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove."
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
SHILPI
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.01.29
10:08:55+01'00'
12
Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV
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, 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:
SHILPI "3. IN CASE OF DISCLOSURE OF
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.01.29 INVOLVEMENT/ARREST/ ACQUITTAL/DISCHARGE
10:08:55+01'00'
ETC. IN CRIMINAL CASE
13
Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV
(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 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 SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA passed as per the recommendations of the Screening GUPTA 2026.01.29 Committee. If the Committee does not recommend the 10:08:55+01'00' case, show cause notice may be confirmed and candidature may be cancelled by passing a reasoned and 14 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV 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 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 SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA before the Screening Committee for its GUPTA 2026.01.29 recommendations.
10:08:55+01'00' 15 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV (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 offencesSection-120B.
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 forceSection-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 JusticeSections-193 to 216-A. SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.01.29 6. Indian penal code chapter-12 10:08:55+01'00' Offences relating to Coin and Government Stamps Sections-231 to 263-A. 16 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV
7. Indian penal code chapter-14 Offences relating to Decency & Moral Sections-292 to 294-A.
8. Indian penal code chapter-15 Offences relating to Religion Sections-295 to 297.
9. Indian penal code chapter-16 Offences Affecting the Human Body Sections-302 to 304, 304-B, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 312,313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331,332, 333, 335, 347, 348, 354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D,363 to 373, 376 to 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-E,377.
10. Indian penal code chapter-17 Offences against Property Sections-379 to 462.
11. Indian penal code chapter-18 Offences relating to Documents and to Property MarksSections-465 to 489.
12. Indian penal code chapter-20-A Offences relating to Marriage Sections-498-A. In cases relating to marriage i.e. 498-A/406 IPC and dowry prohibition act, the candidate may be debarred if he/she is main accused and not collateral accused. However, if he/she has been committed with 498A IPC then he/she may be debarred.
OFFENCES UNDER STATE ENACTED ACTS/SPECIAL ACTS
1. N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Sections-25, 27 of Arms Act-1959
3. Section-7A of Gambling Act.
4. Section 39, 39-A of Indian Electricity Act.
5. Offences under Factories Act.
6. Offences under Food Adulteration Act.
7. Offences under Official Secret Act-1923.
8. Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act. SHILPI 9. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.
SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.01.29
10:08:55+01'00' 10. Offences regarding Terrorist activities. 17 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV
11. Explosives Act.
12. Offences under ITP and MCOCA.
13. Offences under POCSO Act.
14. All offences prescribing conviction of minimum 3 years and above.
15. Such cases which are registered for abetment and conspiracy to commit above mentioned offences.
16. Any criminal cases made under any of the Acts which are concerned with security and integrity of the country, terrorist and disruptive activities, acts against the state insurgency etc.
17.Preventive detention under the National Security Act/Crime Control Act/any similar legislation and the same is confirmed by the Reviewing Authority. Note: All special or local Acts where there is a provision of enhanced punishment for subsequent offences. Above list is not exhaustive, Screening Committee shall consider any other cases/provision in any other law which may be relevant to the facts."
5.4. Applying the aforesaid Standing Order to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the FIR was registered against the applicant under Sections 143, 283 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of Annexure 'A' appended to Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 reveals that Section 143 and Section 427 finds mention under Indian Penal Code Chapter 8 and Chapter-17 and is recognized as a serious offence involving moral turpitude.
5.5. The Screening Committee, while assessing the applicant's suitability, noted that Section 143 and 427 SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.01.29 10:08:55+01'00' involves a serious offence. However, the Committee was 18 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025 Court No. IV 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 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 judgment dated 23.01.2019 passed by the competent criminal court reveals that the prosecution failed to establish the presence and role of the applicant in the alleged incident. The acquittal was not based on any compromise or technical lapse attributable to the accused, but on a detailed appreciation of evidence, wherein the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory versions regarding the identity, arrest and involvement of the accused persons. The Court specifically recorded that the witnesses were unable to identify the accused, that the manner and place of arrest of the applicant was doubtful, and that there was lack of substantive evidence to prove the SHILPI charges beyond reasonable doubt.
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.01.29
10:08:55+01'00'
19
Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV
5.7. We also find substance in the contention of the applicant that there was ambiguity even at the stage of investigation with respect to the identity of the accused, inasmuch as the FIR itself refers to two persons bearing the name "Shishram", namely Shishram Gurjar and Shishram Yadav. Despite such ambiguity, only the present applicant was subjected to trial. This aspect, coupled with the categorical observations of the trial court regarding non-recognition of the applicant by prosecution witnesses, clearly casts a serious doubt on the very involvement of the applicant in the alleged incident.
5.8. We are of the considered view that the discretion vested in the Screening Committee under Standing Order No. HRD-12/2022, though wide, is not unfettered. Such discretion is required to be exercised judiciously and on the basis of objective material. Once the competent court itself found that the prosecution failed to prove the presence or participation of the applicant in the alleged unlawful assembly and stone-pelting incident, the conclusion that the applicant has a "propensity to indulge in violence" is not supported by any cogent SHILPI material on record.
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.01.29
10:08:55+01'00'
20
Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV
5.9. The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra), Pradeep Kumar (supra) and Methu Meda (supra) is not misplaced as a proposition of law; however, the application of those principles must necessarily depend on the facts of each case. In the present case, unlike situations where acquittal is granted on compromise or where credible evidence of involvement exists, the Trial Court has categorically disbelieved the prosecution version itself. Therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments does not come to the aid of the respondents in the peculiar facts of the present case.
5.10. We also find that the applicant had made a truthful and complete disclosure of his involvement in FIR No. 524/2015 in the attestation form. There is no allegation of concealment or suppression of material facts on his part.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1 In view of the foregoing analysis, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.12.2024 rejecting the candidature of the applicant is SHILPI SHILPI GUPTA GUPTA 2026.01.29 10:08:55+01'00' quashed and set aside.21 Item No. 65 O.A. No. 251/2025
Court No. IV 6.2. The respondents shall reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver), and if the applicant is otherwise found eligible and suitable, to issue an 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.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/AS/
SHILPI
SHILPI GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.01.29
10:08:55+01'00'