Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sachin vs Delhi Police on 30 April, 2026
1
O.A. No. 174/2025
Item No. 109(C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 174/2025
Reserved on: 28.04.2026
Pronounced on: 30.04.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Sachin
S/o Sh. Vijay Singh, aged 34 years,
R/o C-115, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur.
New Delhi,110044
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Kunal Kumar Raikwar)
Versus
1. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through The Commissioner of Police
Police Head Quarter, Jai Singh Road,
Central Delhi-110001
2. Additional Commissioner of Police, Recruitment
New Police Lines, Kingsway camp
Delhi-110009
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment
New Police Lines, Kingsway camp-
Delhi-110009
..... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. B L Wanchoo)
PINKY PINKY YADAV
2026.04.30
YADAV 18:20:05+05'30'
2
O.A. No. 174/2025
Item No. 109(C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
By filing the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"8. Reliefs Sought:
(i) Quash and set aside the impugned order of cancellation of candidature dated 06.12.2024;
(ii) Direct the respondents to appoint the applicant in service with all consequential benefits; and
(iii) Pass any other or further order as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.12.2024, whereby the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police has been rejected by the respondents on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case.
2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents had earlier issued a show cause notice dated 21.03.2024, to which the applicant duly submitted a detailed reply along with relevant documents, including the order of acquittal. However, without proper consideration of the reply, the PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 3 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) respondents passed the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the applicant.
2.2. Learned counsel for the applicant drew attention to the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 06.12.2024, which read as under:
"......In pursuance of the instructions contained in HRD/12/2022, your Case along-with reply to SCN as well as documents submitted by you in your claim was placed before the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee examined your case at length and observed that case FIR No. 624/2016 dated 16.09.2016 U/S 294/323/506 IPC, PS/Kohophija, Madhya Pradesh was registered on the complaint of Shri Shailender who stated alleged that on 16.09.2016 at about 03.00 PM when he was present where he working as a Teacher, Sachin Raikwar, an alumni of the Coaching Centre came to the Coaching Centre. On asking to show the ID Card, Sachin Raikwar abused and beaten him and also throw his head to Iron Gate due which he got injuries on the upper portion of his left eye and bleeding. Rahul Parmar and Santosh Kushwaha intervene into the matter. While going from the Coaching Centro, Sachin threatened him to kill if he was asked to produce the Id Card. After investigation charge-sheet U/S 294/323/506 IPC was filed against you on 29.12.2016. You were acquitted from the said case on the grounds of settlement amicably between both the parties by Court vide its order dated 12.11.2016 The Screening Committee observed that you were main accused in the case and were charge-sheeted. You had beaten the complainant due to which he sustained injuries on the upper portion of his left eye and he started bleeding as evident from FIR. Your acquittal was on compromise between the parties. You played active role in beating the complainant which shows premeditated tendency to indulge in crime without fear of law. Such type of attitude renders him unsuitable for appointment in a law enforcing agency and in a disciplined force like Delhi Police. Your reply to the show cause notice is not convincing. The Committee further found that the nature and gravity of the charge is serous in nature and not satisfy with the reply submitted by you in response to show cause notice and not recommended your name for appointment in Delhi Police.
In view of the facts & circumstance mentioned above, the show cause notice issued vide No. PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 4 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) XII/97/2024/32260/Rectt.Cell(R-VI)/CT. (DVI)/NPL dated 21.03.2024 is hereby confirmed. As such, your candidature for recruitment to the post of Const. (Dvr.) in Delhi Police- 2022 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. No further correspondence, in this regard, will be entertained.
This issues with the approval of CP/Delhi."
2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the above findings are arbitrary, perverse, and based on pre-determined conclusions, without proper appreciation of facts.
2.4. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant had honestly disclosed his involvement in the criminal case in the attestation form and did not suppress any material fact. The said criminal case arose out of a trivial dispute and culminated in a lawful compromise before the National Lok Adalat. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the order dated 12.11.2016 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, which records:
"National Lok Adalat Date 12/11/2016 Presented before me in the National Lok Adalat. For State ADPO Ms. Leela Lodhi was present. For accused Karan Dev Prajapati, Advocate-Present Earlier, an application under section 320/2) for compromise permission and the compromise application and written compromise memorandum of the complainant Panch accused had been submitted by the victim.
Observations were made in the case.
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 5 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) Allegation unden Sections 294, 323,506 IPG have been imposed on the accused in this case, which can be compromised by the compalinant with the permission of the court. Hence, with the intention of maintaining the balance in favor of both the parties, permission for compromise is granted.
The dispute is no longer controversial and pending. The matter is already settled. The compromise appears to have been made voluntarily without any coercion. The compromise is made with the intention of maintaining goodwill between the parties. As a result, the accused is acquitted of the offences under Section 2054, 328,506 IPC. The bail bond furnished by the accused stands cancelled. There is no seized property in the matter. The case should be removed from the criminal register, its outcome should be determined and the case should be duly deposited in the archives."
2.5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Screening Committee has pre-judged the issue and virtually sat in appeal over the judicial order of acquittal by terming the conduct of the applicant as "premeditated" and "serious in nature." 2.6. It is further submitted that there was also a cross FIR between the parties, and both sides had allegations under Sections 294, 323, 506 IPC, and in one case Section 34 IPC was also invoked. 2.7. It is highlighted by learned counsel for the applicant that the offences alleged against the applicant are trivial in nature and arose out of a localized personal dispute rather than any grave criminal conduct. He further submitted that the incident was not one-sided, as multiple persons from PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 6 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) the complainant‟s side were also involved, which is evident from the invocation of Section 34 IPC. 2.8. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Mahendra Solanki vs. Commissioner of Police (W.P.(C) No. 2219/2023). He further submits that the Standing Order of Delhi Police HRD/12/2022 does not treat Section 323 IPC as an offence involving moral turpitude.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the question of suitability is within the domain of the the Screening Committee. He relied upon paras 14 and 15 of the counter reply, which read as under:
"14. That the matter of the applicant was placed before the Screening Committee for examination. The applicant was found involved in criminal case FIR No. 624/16, U/S 294/323/506 IPC PS Kohefija, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh registered on the complaint of Shailender. The Screening Committee observed that the candidate was main accused in the case and he was charge-sheeted. The applicant (candidate) beat the complainant due to which he sustained injuries on the upper portion of his left eye and he started bleeding as evident from FIR. He was acquitted on compromise between the parties. The candidate played active role in beating the complainant which shows premeditated tendency to indulge in crime without fear of law. The Nature and gravity of offences is serious in nature. Such type of attitude renders him unsuitable for appointment in a law enforcing agency and in a disciplined force like Delhi Police. The applicant reply to show cause notice was not found convincing. The Screening Committee examined the matter at length and did not find the applicant (candidate) suitable for appointment in Delhi Police and hence, his case was "not PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 7 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) recommended". The decision of the Screening Committee was received vide PHQ's U.O. No. 4754/Rectt. Cell (AC- III)/PHQ dated 25.11.2024. (Annexure- A/2).
15. That the applicant was informed that his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) Male in Delhi Police Examination-2022 was cancelled vide letter No. XII/97/50681/Rectt. Cell(R-VI)/Dvr./NPL, dated 06.12.2024 (Annexed at A-3) and no further correspondence, in this regard, will be entertained."
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon paras 9 and 11 of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Parvez Khan (Civil Appeal No. 10613 of 2014), to contend that acquittal on the basis of compromise does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment and the employer is entitled to assess suitability. The same are hereby extracted:-
"9. It is submitted that in a criminal case, a person cannot be punished in absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt but the standard of proof required for consideration of suitability or otherwise of a candidate was not the same. Discharge on Page 3 Civil Appeal No. of 2014 @ SLP (C) No.36237 of 2012 account of compounding of the offence by the victim depended upon the attitude of the parties. The victim may be prepared to settle the matter for any consideration other than innocence of the accused, but it did not wash off the criminal antecedents of an accused. Entering into police service required a candidate to be of character, integrity and clean antecedents. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved and he had no criminal antecedents. All that may be inferred is that he has not been proved to be guilty. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Police vs. Mehar Singh.
xxx xxx
xxx
11. After due consideration, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Refusal by the competent authority to recruit the respondent on the ground of criminal antecedents is not liable to be interfered with. The applicable Guidelines dated 5th June, 2003 inter PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 8 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) alia provide : "On the basis of merits and demerits by the Hon‟ble Court the acquitted candidate will be eligible for the Government Service." The above guidelines show that acquittal is not conclusive. Even after acquittal, basis of order of the Court has to be gone into by the competent authority. Even after order based on Page 5 Civil Appeal No. of 2014 @ SLP (C) No.36237 of 2012 compromise or lack of evidence may render a candidate ineligible. In the present case, the relevant part of the order of the Superintendent of Police is as follows: "Action was taken in regard to the proceedings of compassionate appointment, character verification was got done, wherein vide Letter No.V.S./21/VHR/2007/17(F)283/07 dated 17.9.2007 of the Police Headquarters it was informed that a case under Section 294, 323, 506, 324, 34 of IPC had been registered against the applicant in Police Station Kotwali as Crime No.185/06 and the applicant was acquitted on the basis of a compromise by the Court on 23.2.2007. In the same manner in Crime No.494/06 under Section 394, 364, 451 of IPC a case was registered and vide judgment dated 31.1.2007 of the Court he was acquitted. Two separate crimes had been registered against the applicant, wherein in one case Section 394, 451, 365 of IPC are there and which come in the category of moral turpitude. In the judgment of the Court benefit of doubt has been given, therefore, as per the new guidelines of 2003 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh in respect of character verification the applicant Parvez Khan alias Sonu alias Raja has been found to be ineligible for Government service."
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 candidate to appointment in a sensitive post like police service. PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 9 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) The employer has the right to independently assess the suitability of the candidate on the basis of antecedents and overall conduct. In the present case, the Screening Committee found the applicant‟s reply to the Show Cause Notice not convincing and observed that the nature of the allegations reflected a propensity to violence, rendering him unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force.
4. 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.
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 10 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) Needless to say, such an assessment should be done by the respondents on a case to case basis. 5.3. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that, for the effective adjudication of the present matter, it is necessary to examine the same in the light of Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 issued by the Delhi Police. The relevant extract of the said Standing Order is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
"3. IN CASE OF DISCLOSURE OF INVOLVEMENT/ARREST/ ACQUITTAL/DISCHARGE ETC. IN CRIMINAL CASE (A) If a candidate had disclosed his/her acquittal/discharge/conviction etc. in criminal case(s), complaint case(s) etc. in the Attestation form, the Appointing Authority after obtaining the information of appeal/revision against the acquittal/discharge etc. shall issue show cause notice for the cancellation of his/her candidature before final decision in the matter.
(B) On receipt of candidate‟s reply, complete case may be sent to PHQ to assess the suitability for appointment in Delhi Police by the Screening Committee. From the observations of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in cases of Mehar Singh, Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar, it is clear that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the provisionally selected candidate for appointment to the post. The 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.
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 11 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4)
i) Even after due opportunity, the candidate still fails to enclose/provide the certified/photocopies of the record/investigation and trial alongwith reply to the show cause notice, then an adverse inference will be drawn against him/her. However, in such a case the Department shall make all efforts to obtain the relevant documents from the authorities concerned and then the matter should be submitted before the Screening Committee for its recommendation.
ii) The recommendation of the Screening Committee should contain the view of the Committee on:-
a) The nature and extent of involvement of the candidate in the criminal case.
b) Whether he/she is acquitted on compromise/benefit of doubt/witnesses turning hostile or honorably. In cases where acquittal was out of compromise or benefit of doubt, the Screening Committee shall offer reasoned and speaking comments.
c) Nature and gravity of the charge etc. Such comment of the Screening Committee would not amount to its sitting on the judgment like a trial court, but would only amount to assessment of the suitability of a candidate involved in a criminal case for appointment in Delhi Police.
iii) The final decision on the show cause notice shall be passed as per the recommendations of the Screening Committee. If the Committee does not recommend the case, show cause notice may be confirmed and candidature may be cancelled by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The complete dossiers of such candidate must be kept in record.
iv) In case of recommendations for joining, show cause notice may be vacated and candidate may be allowed to join Delhi Police after fulfillment of other essential conditions. Reference to this effect must be indicated in the Letter of "Offer of Appointment" as well as Character-Roll and all relevant documents/papers shall be kept with the Fauzi-
Missal.
(C) In case, any appeal/revision etc. against the acquittal/conviction/discharge etc. is pending, then the Screening Committee will decide upon the candidature based on the nature of criminal case. PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 12 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) 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 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, PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 13 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) 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.
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. PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 14 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4)
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.
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. PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 15 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4)
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 FIR No. 624/2016 under Sections 294/323/506 IPC was registered against the applicant at PS Kohefija, Bhopal. A perusal of Annexure „A‟ appended to Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 reflects that while Section 294 IPC falls under Chapter XIV relating to offences concerning decency and morality, Sections 323 and 506 IPC do not, per se, figure within the category of serious offences involving moral turpitude as enumerated therein. PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 16 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) 5.5. At this stage, it becomes necessary to examine whether the discretion exercised by the Screening Committee was in consonance with the letter and spirit of Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022. While the respondents were certainly within their jurisdiction to assess the suitability of the applicant notwithstanding his acquittal, such assessment was required to be objective, reasoned, and based upon the complete factual matrix rather than a selective or mechanical reading of the FIR alone. The Standing Order itself contemplates a contextual evaluation of the nature of allegations, gravity of offence, manner of acquittal, and surrounding circumstances.
5.6. In the present case, the material on record reflects that the incident in question did not arise out of any organized, heinous, or inherently depraved criminal conduct, but rather stemmed from a localized personal altercation between the parties. Significantly, there was also a cross FIR bearing No. 625/2016 under Sections 294/323/506/34 IPC registered at PS Kohefiza, Bhopal at the instance of the applicant‟s side against the complainant party, which clearly indicates that the occurrence was not unilateral but a mutual PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 17 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) confrontation involving allegations from both sides. This material aspect assumes considerable relevance, as it directly bears upon the true nature of the incident; however, the same appears to have been completely ignored by the Screening Committee while branding the applicant alone as exhibiting "premeditated tendency to indulge in crime." 5.7. The omission to consider the existence of the cross FIR, in our considered view, has materially vitiated the decision-making process, inasmuch as the Screening Committee was obligated to evaluate the entire factual background before arriving at any conclusion regarding suitability. A one-sided reliance solely upon the allegations contained in FIR No. 624/2016, while disregarding the reciprocal criminal proceedings arising from the same incident, results in an incomplete and disproportionate assessment. Such an approach effectively elevates mere allegations into conclusive proof of criminal propensity, which is neither contemplated under the Standing Order nor sustainable in law.
PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 18 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) 5.8. It is also noteworthy that the applicant had truthfully disclosed his involvement in the criminal case and did not suppress any material information in the attestation process. Further, the criminal proceedings culminated in acquittal on the basis of lawful compromise before the competent court, reflecting that the dispute had attained quietus. While compromise acquittal may not automatically confer an indefeasible right to appointment, it equally cannot justify automatic disqualification, particularly where the surrounding facts suggest a trivial and mutual dispute rather than conduct so grave as to render a candidate inherently unfit for public service. 5.9. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the respondents, while invoking Section 294 IPC and the concept of moral turpitude, adopted an overly technical and mechanical approach without adequately examining whether, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the incident genuinely disclosed such moral depravity or serious criminal disposition as would justify exclusion from service in Delhi Police. PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 19 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) 5.10. In Mahender Solanki v. Commissioner of Police (supra), it was held that mere registration of FIRs, particularly in cases arising out of minor or mutual disputes, cannot disqualify a candidate, especially when the criminal case is concluded in favor of the candidate. It was also emphasized that the Screening Committee must consider the overall facts, acquittal, and conduct of the candidate, rather than mechanically applying provisions relating to moral turpitude.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the aforesaid, we are satisfied that the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 cannot be sustained, having been founded upon an incomplete consideration of relevant material. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
6.2. The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the applicant afresh, by duly taking into account the entire factual matrix, including the cross FIR No. 625/2016, the nature of the dispute, the order of acquittal, and the principles of fairness embodied in PINKY PINKY YADAV 2026.04.30 YADAV 18:20:05+05'30' 20 O.A. No. 174/2025 Item No. 109(C-4) Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022, and pass a reasoned order.
6.3. In the event the applicant is found suitable and fulfilling all other eligibility criteria, he shall be issued an offer of appointment to the post in question. If appointed, the applicant shall be entitled to notional seniority and all consequential benefits from the date his immediate junior was appointed; however, actual monetary benefits shall accrue only from the date of his joining.
6.4. The Original Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pinky/
PINKY PINKY YADAV
2026.04.30
YADAV 18:20:05+05'30'