Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1030
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Rampur Gurjar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Hdqrs. – Respondent
O.A. No.5009/2024
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Criminal Antecedents
Act Referred
Indian Penal Code: S.294, S.323, S.506, S.34, S.325, S.120B, S.121, S.130, S.131, S.134, S.143, S.149, S.153A, S.153B, S.193, S.216A, S.231, S.263A, S.292, S.294A, S.295, S.297, S.302, S.304, S.304B, S.305, S.306, S.307, S.308, S.311, S.312, S.313, S.314, S.315, S.316, S.317, S.326, S.327, S.328, S.329, S.330, S.331, S.332, S.333, S.335, S.347, S.348, S.354, S.354A, S.354B, S.354C, S.354D, S.363, S.373, S.376, S.376A, S.376B, S.376C, S.376D, S.376E, S.377, S.379, S.462, S.465, S.489, S.498A
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Headnote
(B) Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 - Criminal antecedents in recruitment - Disclosure of acquittal cases mandates show cause notice and Screening Committee assessment of involvement extent, acquittal manner (compromise/benefit of doubt/honourable), offence gravity - Not sitting in appeal over trial court but assessing suitability - Sections 294, 325 IPC listed as serious involving moral turpitude in Annexure 'A' but not conclusive; nuanced case-specific evaluation required balancing sections invoked with circumstances, acquittal basis, candidate conduct - Mechanical reliance on offence nomenclature without holistic view arbitrary. (Paras 6.3 to 6.5)
Facts of the case:
Applicant from rural background applied for Constable (Executive) Male post pursuant to advertisement, cleared written, physical, medical tests on merit, provisionally selected - Two trivial FIRs from personal village disputes over eight years prior, acquitted on compromise (compoundable offences, no prior conviction recorded) - Truthful disclosure led to show cause notice despite acquittals; reply explained circumstances but Screening Committee rejected suitability leading to candidature cancellation.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order arbitrary, unreasoned, disproportionate - Quashed; respondents to reconsider appointment if eligible within eight weeks; notional seniority/consequential benefits from immediate junior's appointment date, monetary from joining.
Issues: Whether mere acquittal on compromise entitles automatic appointment in disciplined force; validity of Screening Committee's suitability assessment under Standing Order; whether cancellation arbitrary for ignoring mitigating factors in trivial, decade-old compounded cases with truthful disclosure.
Ratio Decidendi: Employer discretion in assessing post-acquittal suitability not unfettered - Must apply mind to relevant facts/circumstances objectively; cannot draw unsubstantiated inferences of violence/propensity from old compromise acquittals absent material; balanced holistic evaluation mandated over mechanical offence labelling, upholding Article 14 fairness.
Result: Original Application allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Rhea Verma with Ms. Kavita Chaturvedi
For the Respondents: Mr. Amar Nath Pandey
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's recruitment process, acquittals, and candidature cancellation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents justify screening committee's suitability assessment. (Para 3) |
| 3. applicant's rejoinder distinguishes cited precedents. (Para 4) |
| 4. impugned order quashed; direct reconsideration for appointment. (Para 7) |
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the present Original Application 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 12.12.2024 and grant appointment to the Applicant w.e.f. the date when others who had participated in the examination and succeeded, were granted appointment;
(ii) Direct the Respondents to award all consequential benefits, including back wages, continuity of service, seniority, arrears of fixation of pay at par with other similarly placed, to the Applicant; and
(iii) Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.”
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-
2.1 The applicant has filed the present Original Application challenging the impugned order dated 12.12.2024, whereby the respondents have arbitrarily cancelled the candidature of the applicant for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police – 2023.
2.2 The applicant, hailing from a rural background in Madhya Pradesh, applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.09.2023 and successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process, including the written examination, physical tests and medical examination, and was provisionally selected on merit.
2.3 Prior to the recruitment process, the applicant was implicated in two criminal cases of a trivial nature arising out of personal and village disputes, namely FIR No. 97/2015 and FIR No. 756/2017, both registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC.
2.4 In FIR No. 97/2015, the applicant was given a clean acquittal pursuant to a lawful compromise before the Lok Adalat vide judgment dated 12.12.2015, and in FIR No. 756/2017, wherein the matter was amicably settled and, pursuant to the compromise, the applicant was given a clean acquittal.
2.5. Learned counsel drew our attention to the relevant portion of Lok Adalat Judgment dated 12.12.2015, which reads as under:
“The A.G.P.O. on behalf of the state, along with the accused and Advocate Netram Tyagi, are present. The case is scheduled for arguments on the compromise application submitted by the complainants Lochan, Jogendra, and Rajendra. In this case, on 18.11.15, the applicants Lochan, Jogendra, and Rajendra filed a case against the accused under sections 294, 323, 325, 506 Part-2 of the Indian Penal Code. All these sections are of compoundable nature. The application has been heard. Both parties have expressed their desire for a compromise. The identification of the parties has been done by their respective advocates. The applicant is competent to compound the offense, and there is no record of any previous conviction against the accused. Therefore, the application is accepted. The accused are acquitted from the offenses under sections 294, 323, 325, 506 Part-2 of the Indian Penal Code.”
2.6 Learned counsel submitted that the Screening Committee has rendered its opinion and passed the impugned order in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, without due consideration of the fact that the offences have been compounded and the overall circumstances.
2.7 While filling the attestation form on 29.01.2024, the applicant made a full and truthful disclosure of both criminal cases, thereby demonstrating complete honesty.
2.8 Despite the acquittals and disclosure, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2024, to which the applicant submitted a detailed reply explaining the trivial nature of the cases and the judgments of acquittal.
2.9 However, ignoring the judicial findings, the applicant’s explanation and the settl
