Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 214/2025 Reserved on :- 04.02.2026 Pronounced on:- 12.02.2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Vishwavijay Singh, S/o Shri Anoop Singh, R/o 83/Housing Board Colony, Nariyal Khera, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh- 462038.

...Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Rhea Verma)

Versus

1. Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarters, I.T.O., New Delhi – 110002.

2. Additional Commissioner of Police (Recruitment)

New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi – 110009.

…Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. R. S. Rana)

ORDER Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) Direct the Respondents to set aside and quash order dated 09.12.2024 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 has filed the present Original Application challenging the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 whereby the respondents cancelled the candidature of the applicant for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial), Delhi Police, solely on the basis of his involvement in FIR No. 544/2022, despite the fact that the said FIR arose out of a trivial neighborhood dispute relating to a financial transaction involving the applicant’s mother, in which the applicant was falsely implicated, and despite the applicant having been completely acquitted on merits by a competent criminal court (Lok Adalat, JMFC, Bhopal) vide judgment dated 13.05.2023, which has attained finality.

2.1. Learned counsel further drew our attention to the relevant portion of the competent court judgment dated

13.05.2023, relevant portion of which reads as under:

“The case is fixed for consideration of compromise application.

From the perusal of the case, it appears that against the accused, there are charges under sections 294, 323/34 (two counts), 506 Part-2 of IPC. The compromise in sections 294, 323/34 (two counts), 506 Part-2 IPC is appropriate with mutual consent of the parties. The said application submitted by the opposite party is not against public policy. Against the accused Sujit, Vishwajeet Singh, Kamlabai, Vishwaraj Singh, Anoop Singh, no previous criminal record is shown. The compromise appears to have been made voluntarily without any fear or pressure. Therefore: The charges under sections 294, 323/34 (two counts), 506 Part-2 IPC are compoundable by the complainant. The compromise application is accepted and the accused Sujit, Vishwajeet Singh, Kamlabai, Vishwaraj Singh, Anoop Singh are acquitted from the charges under sections 294, 323/34 (two counts), 506 Part-2 IPC. The accused are discharged from their bail and surety bonds. The result of the case shall be recorded in the register and sent to the record room.”

2.2. Learned counsel argued that the applicant had duly and honestly disclosed the said case in the attestation form, yet the respondents, ignoring the nature of allegations, lack of evidence, counter-FIR No. 545/2022, complete acquittal, settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts, and the applicant’s socio-economic background and meritorious credentials, passed the impugned order in a mechanical, prejudiced and non-application of mind manner, thereby unjustly depriving the applicant of his right to appointment, livelihood and equal treatment, necessitating the filing of the present OA.

2.3. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following case laws in support of the present Original Application:

i. Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC

471;

ii. Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh &

Ors., (2015) 2 SCC 377;

iii. Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012;

iv. Pra