Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sachin Kumar Rana vs Delhi Police on 22 January, 2026
1
Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 210/2025
Reserved on :- 09.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 22.01.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Sachin Kumar Rana
S/o Shri Shyam Singh Rana
R/o Village Bhagwantpur
Post Hatisa,
Distt.-Hathras,
(Mahamaya Nagar)
Uttar Pradesh -204101
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Rhea Verma)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Headquarters,
I.T.O.,
New Delhi 110002
2. Additional Commissioner of Police
Recruitment
New Police Lines
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi -110009
SHILPI GUPTA ...Respondents
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27
10:42:47+05'30'
(By Advocate: Mr. U Srivastava)
2
Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
By way of the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Direct the Respondents to set aside and quash order dated 06.12.2024 and award all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, seniority, arrears of pay, fixation of pay at par with other similarly placed, to the Applicant; and
(ii) Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a duly selected candidate for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male, who successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process and truthfully disclosed his involvement in a criminal case leading to registration of FIR No. 413/2022 against him at PS -PS Hathras Gate, Uttar Pradesh. The said case culminated in a clear acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 01.01.2024, the relevant portion of which, reads as under:
"....I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned prosecution officer and perused all the evidence available on record PWI Bablu stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident occurred about 3 years ago when he had an SHILPI GUPTA argument with the accused over rent money and SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 goods. They assaulted him and refused to return the 10:42:47+05'30' security deposit and threatened to kill him when he asked for it. He filed a complaint under section 156(3) CrPC in court to get the FIR registered. However, in cross-examination, this witness stated that there was only an argument over rent, goods and money given earlier. Many people gathered hearing the commotion.3 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025
Court No. IV The accused neither assaulted him nor threatened to kill him. He was declared hostile on prosecution's request. In further cross-examination, he stated that police did not record his statement under section 161 CrPC and he does not know how they wrote it. He knows the accused well as they live in neighboring areas. He reiterated that the accused did not assault or threaten him, and he does not have any dues from them. He filed the case due to misunderstanding after consulting a lawyer. Thus, this witness has not supported the prosecution case in cross-examination, even though he is the complainant himself. The prosecution has examined only one witness, who has not supported the prosecution story in his testimony. No other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has not provided any evidence on record that proves the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused deserve to be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
Order The accused Shyam Singh, Sachin Kumar Rana, Ranvir Singh and Hariom are acquitted of the charges under sections 323, 406, 506 IPC. The accused are on hail Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and their sureties are hscharged from their liabilities. The accused shall comply with section 437A CrPC."
2.1. Highlighting the aforesaid, learned counsel argued that despite such acquittal, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.2024 questioning the applicant's suitability solely on account of his past involvement in the criminal case. The applicant submitted a detailed reply explaining the circumstances of the case, the trivial nature of the dispute, and the judicial findings exonerating him. However, disregarding SHILPI GUPTA the acquittal, the respondents mechanically cancelled the SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 10:42:47+05'30' applicant's candidature vide the impugned order dated 06.12.2024, giving rise to the present Original Application.
4Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV 2.2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature is arbitrary, unreasonable, and dehors the applicable instructions and guidelines. It was contended that the decision of the competent authority has been taken in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel emphasized that the acquittal of the applicant was rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction after a full-fledged trial and detailed appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel further highlighted that the reasons assigned by the Screening Committee are vague, cryptic, and fail to take into consideration the nature of the allegations, the complete exoneration of the applicant, and the settled legal position governing cases of acquittal in recruitment matters.
2.3. In support of applicant's case, learned counsel relied upon judgment dated 08.08.2025 in O.A. No. 71/2025 (Mukesh vs. UOI) of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the 10:42:47+05'30' respondents submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law, Standing Order No. 5 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV HRD/12/2022, and settled judicial precedents governing recruitment to a disciplined force like Delhi Police. The candidature of the applicant was examined objectively after issuance of a Show Cause Notice and due consideration of his reply by the duly constituted Screening Committee.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was found involved in FIR No. 413/2022 registered under Sections 323, 406 and 506 of the IPC at PS Hathras Gate, Uttar Pradesh and the said involvement was duly examined by the Screening Committee while assessing his suitability for appointment. Learned counsel added that appointment to a law enforcing agency demands a higher standard of integrity and suitability considering the nature of duties involving maintenance of law and order, handling of arms and ammunition, and protection of life and property of the public. The Screening Committee, while assessing the suitability of the applicant, took into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of acquittal, and the overall antecedents of the SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 applicant. The acquittal in the criminal case was not a 10:42:47+05'30' clean acquittal but one based on technical grounds as the complainant turned hostile, as the prosecution failed 6 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV to prove the charges, and therefore the applicant cannot claim an automatic right to appointment. 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. In the present case, the Screening Committee found the applicant's reply to the Show Cause Notice not convincing and observed that the nature of allegations reflected a propensity to violence, rendering him unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force. It is denied that the respondents have acted arbitrarily, whimsically, or in violation of principles of natural justice.
SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 10:42:47+05'30' 3.3. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that a perusal of Annexure 'A' appended to Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 clearly reveals that 7 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV Section 406 IPC is enumerated under Chapter 17 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., "Offences against Property," and is categorized as a serious offence involving moral turpitude.
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 SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view 10:42:47+05'30' that, for the effective adjudication of the present matter, it is necessary to examine the same in the light of Standing 8 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV Order No. HRD 12/2022 issued by the Delhi Police along with the statement of PW-1, Bablu. 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:-
SHILPI GUPTA a) The nature and extent of involvement of the candidate SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 10:42:47+05'30' 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 9 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV 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 SHILPI GUPTA otherwise, the matter will be referred to Screening SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 Committee after obtaining the reply of the individual to 10:42:47+05'30' 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, 10 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV after ascertaining the suitability of the candidate, may recommend appointment of the candidate, subject to decision of such case.
If the case is not of trivial nature then the suitability of the candidate/candidature would be decided by the Screening Committee, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
(E) In cases where the candidate's name has been mentioned in the Column No. 12 i.e. accused person not charge sheeted, then also the matter will be submitted before the Screening Committee for its recommendations.
(F) The details of criminal cases which involve moral turpitude, serious/heinous and gender crime are annexed as Annexure 'A'.
(G) Minor offences, minor traffic rule violations and accident cases [not applicable for candidates provisionally selected as Constable (Driver)], shall not be considered as a bar for recruitment in Delhi Police in view of various CAT/court judgments. (H) If any candidate is released on probation by extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after holding him guilty, his/her case will be examined by the Screening Committee to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police taking into consideration his/her role, gravity of offence and trial court order etc. as per procedure given above.
(I) If a candidate was involved in a criminal case, which was withdrawn by the State Government, he/she will generally be considered fit for government service, unless there are other extenuating circumstances which shall be considered by the Screening Committee." ...
Annexure 'A'
SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE &
OFFENCES UNDER
STATE ENACTED ACTS/SPECIAL ACTS
CONSIDERING
SERIOUS OFFENCES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE SHILPI GUPTA 1. Indian Penal Code chapter-5(A) SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 Criminal conspiracy, To commit heinous 10:42:47+05'30' offencesSection-120B.
2. Indian penal code chapter-6 Offences against the State Section-121 to 130.
11Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV
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.
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 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.
SHILPI GUPTA
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 OFFENCES UNDER STATE ENACTED ACTS/SPECIAL
10:42:47+05'30' ACTS
1. N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Sections-25, 27 of Arms Act-1959
12
Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025
Court No. IV
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.
9. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.
10. Offences regarding Terrorist activities.
11. Explosives Act.
12. Offences under ITP and MCOCA.
13. Offences under POCSO Act.
14. All offences prescribing conviction of minimum 3 years and above.
15. Such cases which are registered for abetment and conspiracy to commit above mentioned offences.
16. Any criminal cases made under any of the Acts which are concerned with security and integrity of the country, terrorist and disruptive activities, acts against the state insurgency etc.
17.Preventive detention under the National Security Act/Crime Control Act/any similar legislation and the same is confirmed by the Reviewing Authority. Note: All special or local Acts where there is a provision of enhanced punishment for subsequent offences. Above list is not exhaustive, Screening Committee shall consider any other cases/provision in any other law which may be relevant to the facts."
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 323, 406, and 506 of SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of Annexure 'A' appended 10:42:47+05'30' to Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 reveals that Section 406 IPC finds mention under Indian Penal Code Chapter- 13 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV 17 (Offences against property) and is recognized as a serious offence involving moral turpitude. 5.5. The Screening Committee, while assessing the applicant's suitability, noted that Section 406 IPC is a serious offence. 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 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. In terms of HRD No.12/2022, the Screening Committee ought to assess the suitability and has to offer reasoned and articulate comments. In the present context, such observations by the Screening Committee cannot be said to be a mere assessment of suitability, nor can they be justified as not amounting to sitting in appeal over the judgment of the Trial Court. Furthermore, while assessing suitability, due regard was required to be given to the SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 nature of the post in question, namely Constable (Driver), 10:42:47+05'30' which does not entail direct responsibilities relating to investigation or maintenance of law and order. 14 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV 5.6 In the present case, the statement of PW-1, Bablu is particularly significant as the prosecution has examined only one witness, who has not supported the prosecution story in his testimony and no other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The relevant portion of the Trial Court judgment dated 01.01.2024 dealing with the statement of PW-1, reads as under:
"PWI Bablu stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident occurred about 3 years ago when he had an argument with the accused over rent money and goods. They assaulted him and refused to return the security deposit and threatened to kill him when he asked for it. He filed a complaint under section 156(3) CrPC in court to get the FIR registered. However, in cross-examination, this witness stated that there was only an argument over rent, goods and money given earlier. Many people gathered hearing the commotion. The accused neither assaulted him nor threatened to kill him. He was declared hostile on prosecution's request. In further cross-examination, he stated that police did not record his statement under section 161 CrPC and he does not know how they wrote it. He knows the accused well as they live in neighboring areas. He reiterated that the accused did not assault or threaten him, and he does not have any dues from them. He filed the case due to misunderstanding after consulting a lawyer. Thus, this witness has not supported the prosecution case in cross-examination, even though he is the complainant himself. The prosecution has examined only one witness, who has not supported the prosecution story in his testimony. No other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution."
5.7. From the foregoing, it is evident that PW-1, Bablu, in his testimony, unequivocally admitted that the applicant neither assaulted nor threatened him and that the criminal SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 case was lodged due to a misunderstanding. Consequently, 10:42:47+05'30' the very foundational basis of the prosecution's case 15 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV stands demolished, leaving no material to attribute any culpable conduct to the applicant.
5.8. Furthermore, the applicant had truthfully disclosed the FIR while filling out the attestation form and there is no allegation of suppression or concealment. The Standing Order specifically allows the Screening Committee to assess suitability in such circumstances but does not mandate automatic rejection. In fact, Clause (B)(ii)(b) permits reasoned comments in cases of acquittal on the benefit of doubt or compromise and emphasizes a contextual assessment rather than a mechanical approach for denial of candidature. We are of the view that in the present case, the complainant's own statement is highly significant, and the Screening Committee ought to have given due consideration to it.
5.9. Reliance on the Screening Committee's "mechanical" observation that involvement in a serious offence indicates unsuitability ignores the actual circumstances of the case and acquittal. It is well-settled that disciplinary and suitability assessments must be guided by fairness and reason, particularly when the post requires trust and SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 integrity, 10:42:47+05'30' but there is no adverse conduct proven against the candidate.
16Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV 5.10 In Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023 (arising out of *SLP (C) No. 33423 of 2018), Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 04.12.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"25. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honorably acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.
26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not proved" - in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" [See Vijayee Singh and Others v. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190]."
5.11 Considering the facts, the acquittal, the PW-1's statement, and the applicant's truthful disclosure, we are SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27 of the view that the impugned order cannot sustain.
SHILPI GUPTA 10:42:47+05'30' 17 Item No. 61 O.A. No. 210/2025 Court No. IV
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 quashed and set aside.
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 GUPTA
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.01.27
10:42:47+05'30'