Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Aditya Kaswan vs Union Of India on 13 November, 2025
1
Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 5005/2024
This the 13th day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Aditya Kaswan
S/o Sh. Mohar Singh Kaswan
R/o War No.3, Village & PO Dudhwakhara,
Tehsil & Distt. Churu - Rajasthan,
Pincode - 331029
(Aged about 27 years)
(Candidate to the post of Head Constable
(AWO/TPO) in Delhi police
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with
Ms. Meenu Sharma)
Versus
1. Commissioner of police
Delhi Police Hdqrs.
(New Building),
Behind Parliament Street police Station,
New Delhi - 11000l
2. Deputy Commissioner of police
(Recruitment Cell)
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi _ 110052
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Ashish Singh)
2
Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
"8. (a) Quash and set aside impugned order dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure A/1) alongwith impugned show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 (Annexure A/2) and;
(b) Direct the respondents to forthwith consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) and
(c) Accord of all consequential benefits including monetary and seniority benefits
(d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
(e) Pass any order/ relief /direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants"
2. The learned counsel for the applicant impugns the decision making process as well as the decision arrive by the Screening Committee vide which the candidature of the applicant was rejected. He highlights Annexure-A/1 and states that the decision has been passed observing as under:-
"The Screening Committee observed that you candidate and other accused were involved in the case of unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and provocation. You played an active role in causing hurt to the complainant which shows your propensity to indulge in crime and violence without any fear of laws as evident from FIR. You were acquitted of the charges by giving benefits by doubt as the PWs resiled from their statements during the trial and they were declared turned hostile. Nature and gravity of offence are serious in nature. In view of 3 Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024 Court No. IV observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in UOI Vs Methu Meda Acquitted of candidate can't be considered as "Honorable Acquitted". You candidate having such conduct cannot be appointed in a law enforcing agency and disciplined force like Delhi Police. In view of above, observations of Apex Court in various cases and provisions of Standing order, Screening committee did not find you candidate Aditya Kaswan suitable for your appointment in Delhi Police and your case is not recommended. Hence, your reply to show cause notice is not convincing."
3. The minutes of the Screening Committee have been produced before us, reads as under:-
"The candidate was involved in case of unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and provocation.
He played active role in causing hurt to the complainant which shows his propensity to indulge in crime and violence without any fear of laws as evident from FIR.
He was acquitted of the charges by giving benefit by doubt as the PWs resiled from their statements during the trial and they were declared turned hostile.
Nature and gravity of offence are serious in nature.
Acquitted of candidate can't be considered as "Honorable Acquitted" in view of observation of Court in UOI Vs Methu Meda.
A candidate having such conduct cannot be appointed in a law enforcing agency and disciplined force like Delhi Police.
His reply to show cause notice is not convincing.
In view of above, observations of Apex Court in various cases and provisions of Standing Order, Screening Committee did not find the candidate suitable for appointment in Delhi Police and his case is "Not Recommended."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the act of the respondents is clear non application of mind and to the facts of the present case. He states that the age of the applicant on alleged 4 Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024 Court No. IV date of offence was 18 years and the date of FIR is 06.07.2015.
5. It is not in dispute that the applicant was not trial as a juvenile at a relevant point of time. Only issue to be examined in the present matter is with regard to the fact whether the decision rendered by the Competent Court of jurisdiction in criminal matter, whereby the applicant has been acquitted has been taken in right perspective by the Screening Committee in denying the benefit of selection.
6. We draw attention from the decision taken by Competent Court of jurisdiction on 22.04.2017 highlighting that the charges are u/S 143/323/341/504 IPC which were explained orally have been dealt with by the Competent Court after a complete trial. It is also evident that as under:-
"Thus, from the evidence of the above important witnesses available on the file, it comes out that both these witnesses have stated that Mukesh and Sunil had beaten them, and they have reached a compromise. In the cross-examination conducted by the Assistant Prosecution Officer, both these witnesses have clearly denied that the accused Aditya, Amit, Vishal, Ravi. Mahendra, Vikas, Gajendra, Tarun, Surendra had beaten them. Therefore, if any incident of beating or abusing these two witnesses was committed by the two accused Mukesh and Sunil, then the group of those two persons cannot be considered as an unlawful assembly. For Section 143 IPC, it is necessary for five or more persons to be members of an unlawful assembly, which is not the case as per the evidence of the above witnesses. Therefore, in my humble opinion, from the evidence of the witnesses examined on the file by the prosecution, the offence under Section 143 IPC against the accused is proved beyond 5 Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024 Court No. IV reasonable doubt it is not proved. Therefore, the accused have been charged with the alleged crime under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code. They deserve to be acquitted on the basis of their body."
7. The applicant was named as accused no. 5 in the said offence and on the basis of benefit of doubt u/S 143 of IPC. The applicant has been acquitted based on the compromise.
8. To the contrary the Screening Committee has already noted above as the applicant had played an active role, acquittal has been given on the basis of benefit of doubt, which runs contrary to the facts and evidence emerged while acquittal was made.
9. We observe the remarks of the Screening Committee appears to be sitting over as the Appellate Court in the matter of trial, which has been gone in detail by the Competent Court of jurisdiction, there is no iota of evidence forthcoming as to how the applicant was actively involved in the commission of crime.
10. We have also gone through the FIR as well as detailed order of acquittal passed to this effect.
11. We have already noted above that in terms of Section 143 of IPC, more than five persons are required for unlawful assembly. However, fact of the 6 Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024 Court No. IV matter it has come in the evidence as noted herein above that there were only two persons who have entered into compromise not the applicant.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the grant of reliefs. He relies upon the para 4 and 5 of his counter reply, which reads as under:-
"4. That the Screening Committee had observed that the applicant and the other accused were involved in the case of unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and provocation. The applicant played an active role in causing hurt to the complainant which shows he had a propensity to indulge in crime and violence without any fear of law as evident from FIR. The applicant along with other accused were acquitted of the charges by giving benefits of doubt as the PWs resiled from their statements during the trial and they were declared turned hostile. Nature and gravity of offence is serious in nature. In view of observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Methu Meda, acquittal of candidate cannot be considered as "Honourable Acquitted". The Screening Committee had a view that a candidate having such conduct cannot be appointed in a law enforcing agency and disciplined force like Delhi Police. Hence his reply to show cause notice was not convincing and in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, his candidature for the recruitment to the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) in Delhi Police was cancelled vide order No. 14548/Rectt.Cell (DA-II)/SI Cell/NPL dated 10.12.2024.
5. That it is worth mentioning here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4842/2012, titled C.P. Delhi Vs Mehar Singh and Civil Appeal No.4965/2012, titled C.P. Delhi Vs Shani Kumar has observed that:- "The Screening Committee will be within its right to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such person's involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law- and-order situation rather than maintaining it".
"The Police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must 7 Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024 Court No. IV have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the force."
13. As we have already noted above that only two persons were involved, which had entered into a compromise, nothing has been shown in the decision rendered by the Competent Court of jurisdiction that the applicant himself was actively involved in the matter. The offence of unlawful assembly can only be made out when more than five persons are involved. Admittedly two persons were involved, which have been already mentioned and noted by the Competent Court and these two persons were Mr. Mukesh Godara and Mr. Sunil Sherawat, not the applicant.
14. Since the offence of unlawful assembly has not been established on record the only observation that that the witnesses have become hostile, after detailed examination of the Public Prosecutor that ipso facto cannot be said that the applicant who was at the age 18 years at the relevant point of time, was involved in commission which can be considered to be a fatal to the case of the applicant for rejection of the candidature.
8Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024 Court No. IV
15. We have also observed as on date the Screening Committee ought to apply its mind in a holistic manner taking a view as per the facts of the case not sitting as in an Appellate jurisdiction over a decision rendered by a Court of competence after exhausting a critical criminal trial.
16. We also note the concern of the respondents that the Police is a disciplined force in light of the decision rendered in Union of India Vs. Methu Meda and in Civil Appeal No. 4965/2013 titled CP Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh. The case of the applicant has to be examine on facts of each case not in a wholesale manner, completely arriving on a decision based on the decision rendered in Methu Meda (supra). The decision making process has to be independent and impartial applying ratio of Methu Meda (supra), the facts of each case.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 8751/2021 titled as Anita Vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr. decided on 29.01.2025, relevant paras of which read as under:-
"9. Undoubtedly, the petitioner did not have, in her favour, an honourable acquittal or even an acquittal on benefit of doubt, in the criminal proceedings which were 9 Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024 Court No. IV instituted against her by FIR 99/2013. The petitioner was acquitted only on the basis of a compromise executed between her and the complainant. Mr. Chhibber sought to submit that the Tribunal has not taken into account a subsequent order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 20 March 2015.
****
17. Mr. Chhibber also sought to place reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pawan Singh v Commissioner of Police7. In that case, the concerned officials had been acquitted of the criminal charge against them, albeit on benefit of doubt. The present case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable, as there is no honourable acquittal or acquittal on benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner.
18. The reasons which prompted the respondent not to appoint the petitioner as Constable in Delhi Police are germane and in our view, would not brook judicial interference. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal to the extent it has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner."
18. We observe that the said decision rendered in Anita was in context of acquittal u/S 320 (8) on the bases of compounding on an offence, which is not the case herein. Here a detailed cross examination and trial has been entered the witnesses were declared hostile. Even for that matter; the applicant cannot be construed to part of an unlawful assembly, as the basic of an unlawful assembly have not been established.
19. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 and 21.03.2024 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue offer of appointment to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10 Item No. 35 O.A. No.5005/2024 Court No. IV Actual benefit shall accrue from the date of joining of the applicant to the post.
20. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of consequential benefits. However, in the above facts and circumstances, we reject the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant.
21. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/