Mere acquittal does not automatically entitle appointment in disciplined force; Screening Committee must judiciously assess trial findings, not mechanically reject on FIR gravity or hostile witnesses without objective evaluation of evidence failure.

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:-

“1. To call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the impugned SCN dated 27.03.2024 and order dated 18.10.2024, as well as the proceedings of the Screening Committee on the basis of which the impugned orders were passed, and to direct the respondents to issue a letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of Ct. (Ex.) with all consequential benefits including seniority/promotion and arrears of pay, as the applicant is still unemployed.

2. To award costs in favour of the applicant and to pass any order or orders which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned orders whereby his candidature for the post of Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police was cancelled solely on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case (FIR No. 227/2020 dated 22.05.2020 PS Pataudi, Gurugram, Haryana), despite the fact that he was honorably acquitted by the competent court for want of evidence.

2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had made truthful disclosure of the said criminal case at the time of filling up the application form and, being fully aware of such disclosure, the respondents permitted him to participate in all stages of the recruitment process including written, physical, medical and interview/personality test and even provisionally selected him. Learned counsel added that once the competent court, after appreciating the entire evidence, found no incriminating material against the applicant and extended the benefit of acquittal, all stigma attached to the criminal case stood obliterated, and the respondents could not sit in appeal over the judgment of the Trial Court by re-assessing the nature or gravity of the offence or the manner of acquittal.

2.2. Learned counsel argued that the respondents have failed to point out any adverse material regarding the applicant’s character or antecedents apart from the disclosed case, and the denial of appointment after provisional selection amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power, a violation of the principles of natural justice, and an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

2.3. Learned counsel further emphasized that mere involvement in an FIR or the gravity of the sections invoked cannot be grounds to deny appointment once acquittal has attained finality, particularly when the relevant service rules do not treat involvement in a criminal case as a disqualification, and such rejection would unjustly punish the applicant for allegations that the prosecution itself failed to prove.

2.4. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the following case laws:-

(i) Joginder Singh v. Union of India (2015) 2 SCC 377 (Hon’ble Supreme Court)

(ii) Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. O.A. No. 4696/2024, decided on 31.10.2025 (CAT, Principal Bench)

(iii) Commissioner of Police v. Amit W.P. No. 8314/2025, decided on 15.07.2025 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court)

(iv) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Jai Prakash W.P. No. 3566/2010, decided on 24.05.2010 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court)

(v) Union of India v. Jagdamba W.P. No. 6152/2015, decided on 02.07.2015 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court)

(vi) Commissioner of Police v. Vidur W.P. No. 16651/2025, decided on 12.12.2025 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court)

(vii) Jitendra Lawaniya v. Union of India & Ors. O.A. No. 4858/2024, decided on 16.12.2025 (CAT, Principal Bench).

2.5. Learned counsel further highlighted the Trial Court judgment dated 29.02.2023, the relevant portion of which reads