An acquittal in a criminal case does not grant automatic eligibility for appointment to sensitive positions, as suitability must be assessed based on all antecedents.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Direct the Respondents to set aside and quash order dated 04.11.2024 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. 374/2021 against him at PS – Sahajanwa, District Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. The said case culminated in a clear acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 13.01.2023, the relevant portion of which, reads as under:

“…Therefore, considering all the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the legal provisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of the court, the charges leveled against the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges under sections 323,427,325 IPC against the accused Hanuman Yadav, Yogendra Kumar Yadav and Harikesh Yadav. Therefore, the accused Hanuman Yadav, Yogendra Kumar Yadav and Harikesh Yadav deserve to be acquitted of the the on offense said basis of doubt.Order The accused Hanuman Yadav, Yogendra Kumar Yadav and Harikesh Yadav are acquitted of the offense under şections 323,427,325 IPC in Case Number-30326/2016, Crime No.374/2021, Police Station-Sahjanwa, District-Gorakhpur. The accused are on bail, therefore their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged from their obligations.”

2.1. Highlighting the aforesaid, learned counsel argued that despite such acquittal, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 12.04.2024 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 the acquittal, the respondents mechanically cancelled the applicant’s candidature vide the impugned order dated 04.11.2024, giving rise to the present Original Application.

3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law, Standing Order No. 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. 374/2021 registered under Sections 147, 308, 323, 427 of the IPC at PS Sehejnawa, Gorakhpur, 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 applicant. The a