Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mansukha Meena vs Comm. Of Police on 9 January, 2026
Item No. 44/C-4 1 OA No. 2919/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O. A. No. 2919/2021
Today this the 09th day of January, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Mansukha Meena,
Age- 28 Years
Appointment : MTS (Civilian)
Roll NO. 2669440
S/o Sh. Ramavtar Meena,
R/o- V & PO-Gagawana, Tehsil- Mahwa,
District- Dausa, Rajasthan-321608
Group ‗C' ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through the Chief Secretary,
Naya Sachivalaya,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment,
New Police Lines
Kingsway Comp, Delhi-9 ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ashish Singh)
NEETUDigitally
by NEETU
signed
SHAR SHARMA
Date:
2026.01.15
MA 12:08:25+05'30'
Item No. 44/C-4 2 OA No. 2919/2021
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manigh Garg, Member (J):
The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present O.A., filed u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
"8.1 To quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 31.03.2021 whereby the candidature of applicant to the post of MTS (Civilian)- Barber is put under notice and order dated
2.11.2021 whereby the candidature of the applicant to the post of the MTS (Civilian)-Barber is cancelled and to further direct the respondents that applicant be given appointment to the post of MTS (Civilian)-barber with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.
Or/and Any other relief which this Hon‟ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
2. The present Original Application has been preferred under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereby the applicant assails the order dated 02.11.2021 issued by the respondents' cancelling his candidature for appointment to the post of MTS (Barber) (Civilian) in Delhi Police, on the ground of alleged concealment of involvement in a criminal case. The applicant further seeks consequential directions for restoration of his candidature and consideration for appointment in accordance with law.
2.1 Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and hails from a rural background. He Item No. 44/C-4 3 OA No. 2919/2021 applied for the post of MTS (Civilian) - Barber pursuant to recruitment conducted by the respondents for the year 2017. Upon successful completion of the written examination, trade test and medical examination, the applicant was provisionally selected, subject to verification of character and antecedents. Prior to the recruitment process, the applicant had been implicated along with his father in FIR No. 258/2015, registered under Sections 353/332/504 IPC at Police Station Mahwa, District Dausa (Rajasthan). The said criminal case culminated in acquittal vide judgment dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahwa, District Dausa, after appreciation of evidence. Subsequently, the applicant filled the attestation/verification form on 19.03.2020. In the said form, he did not disclose the earlier criminal case. According to the applicant, this omission occurred due to a bonafide misunderstanding, as he believed that only cases resulting in conviction were required to be disclosed. Importantly, on 19.02.2021, much before issuance of any show cause notice, the applicant suo motu submitted a sworn affidavit before the respondents, explicitly disclosing the registration of the criminal case and his acquittal therein. Notwithstanding the above disclosure, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 31.03.2021, alleging concealment of material facts and proposing cancellation of candidature.
2.2 The applicant was acquitted from the criminal case much prior from the date of filling of attestation form and was bonafide under impression that details of case in which conviction took place needs to be given thus not revealed the detail of criminal case. The present act of the applicant shows that applicant has no malafide intention to conceal the details of criminal case. The Item No. 44/C-4 4 OA No. 2919/2021 present case thus cannot be a case of concealment as the applicant sou-motu corrected the inadvertent error prior to the issue of notice for cancelling of candidature on concealment of fact. The present submission is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Commissioner of Police Vs. Dhaval Singh decided on 01.05.1998, reported in 1999 (1) SCC
246. 2.3 The applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 06.07.2021, explaining the circumstances of the criminal case, the nature of acquittal, his bonafides, and the fact of voluntary disclosure. The applicant was also afforded a personal hearing. However, the respondents, vide order dated 02.11.2021, cancelled his candidature. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. Relevant part of the order dated 02.11.2021 reads as under:-
"You were also heard in Orderly room by the undersigned on 28.10.2021. During personal hearing, you pleaded nothing except the version given in the reply and requested that you may be considered for the post in question.
The plea(s) put forth by you in personal hearing as well as in the reply have been considered in detail but not found convincing because of the reason that in column No. 11 (A) of the Attestation Form, you clearly mentioned that "NAHI MERE UPAR KOI ABHIYOG NAHI CHALAYA GAYA". You have concealed the facts of your involvement in the above said criminal case deliberately despite clear warning given at the top of this form that furnishing of any false information or concealing any facts will be treated as disqualification.
Thus, you have concealed the facts of your involvement in the above said criminal case in the relevant column of Attestation Form and tried to seek appointment in Delhi Police by adopting deceitful means with malafide intention. Hence, the show cause notice issued to you vide this office Letter No. XII/12/2021/2464/Rectt. Cell (Ct.)/NPL dated 31.03.2021 is hereby confirmed and your candidature for the post of MTS (Civilian/Barber) in Delhi Police- 2017 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect."
Item No. 44/C-4 5 OA No. 2919/2021 3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that:-
The applicant was acquitted after a full trial. The criminal case was trivial in nature, arising out of a village dispute.
There was no moral turpitude involved.
The applicant made a voluntary disclosure before issuance of
the show cause notice, which negates any allegation of deliberate suppression.
The impugned order is non-speaking, mechanical and ignores settled law.
The post of MTS (Barber) is a non-sensitive civilian post, being the lowest in the hierarchy.
The respondents failed to apply the law laid down in Avtar
Singh Vs. Union of India, Sandeep Kumar Vs.
Commissioner of Police, and other binding precedents. Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) held that different parameter needs to be taken into consideration i.e. nature, duty of post etc. while dealing such case of concealment of facts and the relevant extract is reproduced herein below:-
"higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects."
3.2 Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order/judgment dated 29.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1160/2022 titled Chaudhari Vipul Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. to contend that the issue involved in the present O.A. is no longer res integra. It is submitted that in the said case, this Tribunal, after considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Item No. 44/C-4 6 OA No. 2919/2021 Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., held that where there was no criminal case pending on the date of submission of the application form and the candidate was subsequently acquitted, cancellation of candidature could not be sustained. On the said reasoning, the Tribunal had quashed the order cancelling candidature and remanded the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration by passing a reasoned and speaking order, with consequential benefits. At this stage, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced herein below:-
"6. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the judgment of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012. In para 29 after discussing the legal position, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had considered the fact that on the date of the application there was no criminal case pending against the applicant therein and as such there was no suppression of information in the application form, although later the candidate had got involved.
7. In Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down broad guidelines which has to be taken note of by the appointing/competent authority in dealing with the matters where there is a suppression of material information or disclosure of false information.
8. We are bound by the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in such matters. In view of the same, the OA is disposed of with the following directions to the respondents:
i. The matter is remanded to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Recruitment Cell, i.e. Respondent No. 2, to reconsider the case of the applicant in light of the fact that the applicant has been acquitted in the said criminal case.
ii. Impugned order dated 19.09.2018 cancelling the candidature of the applicant is quashed and set aside.
iii. The respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months considering the candidature of the applicant and if found eligible, notional consequential benefits shall follow."
Item No. 44/C-4 7 OA No. 2919/2021 4.1 Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averment made in the counter reply and submitted that the applicant has concealed the material facts of his involvement in the above said criminal case deliberately despite clear warning given at the top of the Form that furnishing of any false information or concealing any facts will be treated as disqualification. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that:
Disclosure in the attestation form is mandatory. Suppression itself amounts to misconduct irrespective of acquittal.
The applicant knowingly answered ―No‖ to the relevant column.
The respondents passed a speaking order after granting opportunity of hearing.
Appointment in Delhi Police requires strict standards of integrity.
4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 20.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1183 of 2012, The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Mylapore Vs. J. Raghunees, to contend that suppression of material information regarding involvement in a criminal case, even if the candidate had been acquitted prior to verification, constitutes a serious disqualification, particularly in matters relating to recruitment to a disciplined force. It is submitted that full and truthful disclosure of antecedents is mandatory and non- disclosure itself disentitles a candidate from appointment. For facility of reference, the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted herein below:--
Item No. 44/C-4 8 OA No. 2919/2021 "5. The issue which has given rise to this appeal is that whether the respondent is guilty of suppression of material fact with regard to his involvement in the above criminal case so as to disentitle him to employment.
6. The authorities vide order dated 09.11.2004 held that the respondent was not entitled to appointment as he was guilty of suppressing material fact by not stating about his involvement in the criminal case while filling up column 15 of the attestation form.
7. The above order was challenged by the respondent by means of a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed but in writ appeal the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ appeal was allowed on the reasoning that the respondent was acquitted from the criminal case much before the verification and therefore, the respondent rightly thinking that his involvement in the criminal case is of no relevance bona fidely failed to mention about the same and as such suppression of this information cannot be considered to be willful or intentional so as to deprive him of service pursuant to his selection.
8. The Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 provides for the eligibility criteria for the recruitment and appointment in the State Police Service. It, inter alia, provides that no person shall be eligible for the appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. For the sake of convenience, the relevant Rule 14(b) is reproduced below:
"Extract of Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978 14(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority.
i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service and
ii) that the character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service.
iii) that such a person does not have more than one wife living."
9. The aforesaid rule only provides for the eligibility criteria and that, apart from other things, the character and antecedents of the candidate are relevant and material factor for giving him entry in the service. Additionally, the respondent was required to disclose certain information about himself by filling the verification roll. The said verification roll is very relevant and important for the purposes of the present case, especially its column 15 and in particular the language of the said column which reads as under: -
Item No. 44/C-4 9 OA No. 2919/2021 "15 - Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant?"
10. The aforesaid column in unequivocal terms inquires from the candidate about his involvement in any criminal case whether in past or present and unaffected by its status or result.
11. The respondent in filling up the said verification roll in reply to the query made in the aforesaid column stated „NO‟ meaning thereby he clearly stated that he had not been involved in any criminal case.
12. Apparently in the admitted facts, the respondent was involved in a criminal case but had been acquitted therefrom. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent was not concerned with any criminal case. Therefore, he ought to have disclosed the correct position that he was involved in a criminal case but had been acquitted. The respondent instead of giving the full and complete information as above simply stated „NO‟ as if he was never involved in any criminal case. The answer of the respondent to the question posed in column 15 of the verification roll undoubtedly conveys the wrong information and amounts to the suppression of the correct information.
13. The issue in the matter is not of eligibility of the respondent to the post in the light of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules,1978 rather that of suppression of material information which was required to be disclosed in column 15 of the verification roll. The respondent has certainly not disclosed the correct information. His honorable acquittal or acquittal by giving benefit of doubt is not material and relevant but what is relevant is the full and complete disclosure of the information regarding his involvement in a criminal case which has been suppressed by him.
14. In Avtar Singh case, a three-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar kind of situation summarised the legal position by stating that (i) Information given by the candidate to the employer as to his conviction, acquittal, arrest or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. (ii) In cases where conviction or acquittal had already taken place before filling the application/verification form, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. (iii) and even if the employee had made truthful declaration of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents of the candidate/employee and cannot be compelled to appoint him/her.
15. In other words, the candidate in the first instance is obliged to give correct information as to his conviction, acquittal or arrest or pendency of the criminal case and there should be no Item No. 44/C-4 10 OA No. 2919/2021 suppression or false mention of required information. Secondly, even if truthful declaration is made by him, he would not be entitled to appointment as a matter of right and that the employer still has the right to consider his antecedents.
16. In the case at hand, though the respondent may be eligible for appointment but since he has not disclosed the complete information with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, wherein he might have been acquitted earlier even before verification, he cannot escape the guilt of suppressing the material information as required by column 15 of the verification roll. Keeping in mind that the respondent was a candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force, the non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employment.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment and order of the Division Bench passed in writ appeal cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside restoring that of the writ court.
18. The appeal is allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs"
5. The following issues arise for consideration:
i. Whether the applicant deliberately suppressed material information regarding his criminal antecedents?
ii. Whether the nature of the offence and acquittal rendered the applicant unsuitable for appointment?
iii. Whether the respondents applied the correct legal principles while cancelling the candidature?
iv. Whether the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness, non- application of mind, or violation of constitutional guarantees?
6.1 Whether there was deliberate suppression of material facts- Suppression implies a wilful and conscious act of concealment with an intent to deceive. Mere omission, absent mens rea, cannot ipso facto be treated as suppression. In the present case, Item No. 44/C-4 11 OA No. 2919/2021 the applicant stood acquitted much prior to filling the attestation form. More significantly, he voluntarily disclosed the criminal case by submitting an affidavit dated 19.02.2021.
6.2 This disclosure was not prompted by any inquiry or notice and was made before initiation of adverse action. Such conduct is inconsistent with an intention to deceive.
6.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police Vs. Dhaval Singh (1999) 1 SCC 246 held that where disclosure is made prior to cancellation, the allegation of suppression loses its sting. Therefore, we hold that the omission in the attestation form cannot be termed as deliberate or mala fide suppression.
6.4 The criminal case pertained to Sections 353/332/504 IPC, arising out of a local dispute. The trial court, after evaluating evidence, recorded acquittal. The acquittal was not on technical grounds but due to absence of evidence, thereby amounting to a clean acquittal. In Deepa Tomar Vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that acquittal for lack of evidence cannot be treated as a tainted acquittal. No material has been placed to show that the applicant's conduct involved moral turpitude or continuing criminal propensity.
6.5 The post in question is MTS (Barber):
Civilian in nature
Non-sensitive
Lowest in the service hierarchy
6.6 In Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that:
Item No. 44/C-4 12 OA No. 2919/2021 "For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties and impact of suppression on suitability must be considered."
6.7 The respondents have adopted a zero-tolerance, inflexible approach, contrary to the discretionary and contextual assessment mandated by law.
6.8 The impugned order merely reiterates allegations of concealment and does not deal with:
The affidavit dated 19.02.2021,
The nature of acquittal,
The applicant's socio-economic background,
Binding judicial precedents.
6.9 Such an order is non-speaking and reflects non-application of mind, rendering it arbitrary. Administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably, proportionately, and in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7.1 From the above, it appears that there was a scuffle between the 3-4 Ward Members and around 20-25 persons of village were for a meeting at the Atal Seva Kendra. According to PW, the people gathered there told that Ramavtar and Mansukha was the person. But later on, P.W. i.e. Mr. Mukesh Kumar turned hostile. Hence, complainant Mukesh and other prosecution witness have been declared hostile and further in absence of examination of investigation officer and eye witness, the charge i.e. accused voluntarily causes hurt to complainant and obstruct in the discharge of official duty, abused or scuffle cannot be proved beyond doubt. Thus, applicant herein has been acquitted from the charge u/e 332, 353 and 504 by giving benefit of doubt by Krishan Kant, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahva, Disrict- Dausa (Rajasthan).
Item No. 44/C-4 13 OA No. 2919/2021 7.2 We have examined the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, particularly Avtar Singh (supra) and Dhaval Singh (supra). The decision rendered in Ravindra Kumar (supra) has also been considered; however, it is applicable only to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. In the present matter, the crucial fact remains that the while passing the impugned order, the respondents herein had overlooked the affidavit dated 19.02.2021 filed by the applicant himself, wherein he had disclosed the pendency of the criminal trial. Consequently, the doctrine of ipso facto does not apply to the facts of the present case.
7.3 The respondents have failed to consider relevant factors and binding judicial dicta. The impugned action is disproportionate, arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
8. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed with the following directions:
i. The impugned order dated 02.11.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondents are directed to restore the candidature of the applicant for the post of MTS (Barber) (Civilian).
iii. The applicant shall be eligible for consequential benefits including seniority and considered for appointment in accordance with rules.
iv. The above exercise shall be completed within eight (8) weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9. Ordinarily, we would have referred the matter to the Competent Authority to take a holistic view in terms of the Item No. 44/C-4 14 OA No. 2919/2021 observation in the aforesaid order/judgment dated 29.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1160/2022 titled Chaudhari Vipul Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., particularly, in light of paragraph 8 (i) thereof. However, considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Recruitment), who was also instrumental in issuing the show cause notice, we do not consider it appropriate to follow the direction of remanding the matter to the Recruitment Cell for reconsideration of suitability, as such suitability has already been assessed and observed hereinabove.
10. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/