Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi O.A. No.4858/2024 This the 16^th day of December, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Jitendra Lawaniya S/o Shri Mukesh Lawaniya R/o Village-Garhi Nandu Post-Salemabad Distt.-Agra, Uttar Pradesh Pincode - 283122 …Applicant (By Advocate : Ms. Rhea Verma with Ms. Kavita Chaturvedi)

Versus

1. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New Building), Behind Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi -110001

2. Additional Commissioner of Police Recruitment New Police Lines Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 110009 …Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. Trilok Singh Bisht)

ORDER (ORAL)

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 seeks the following reliefs:-

“(i) Direct the Respondents to set aside and quash order dated 16.10.2024 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. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 16.10.2024, whereby the candidature of the applicant for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police Examination-2023 has been cancelled, is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and vitiated by complete non-application of mind.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant belongs to an economically weaker rural background and, by sheer merit and hard work, successfully cleared the Computer Based Examination, PE & MT and Medical Examination, and was provisionally selected, subject to verification of character and antecedents. It is not in dispute that the applicant duly filled the Attestation Form on

30.01.2024 and truthfully disclosed his involvement in FIR No. 207/2021 dated 05.09.2021, registered under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 307, 112. Thus, there is no concealment, suppression or misrepresentation on the part of the applicant.

4. Learned counsel submits that the said FIR arose out of a trivial neighbourhood dispute regarding disposal of garbage, and the allegations were grossly exaggerated due to personal animosity. After a full- fledged trial, the Court of ACJM, Agra, vide judgment dated 19.02.2024, acquitted the applicant. The complainant himself admitted that the FIR was lodged out of anger and vengeance, and that the applicant had not indulged in any violence or criminal activity. The prosecution witnesses, including PW-2 and PW-3, categorically stated that no assault was committed by the applicant, and PW-3 admitted that her earlier statement was made under pressure. The judgment of acquittal has attained finality. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 19.02.2024 reads as under:-

“The witness has been cross-examined by prosecution side in which the witness has denied with her statement of Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has stated that I had not given any such statement to the Police Inspector. I cannot narrate facts in my statement. The statement of Section 164 Cr.P.C. of victim in sealed envelope has been received to the Court, which has been opened before the Counsel of Accused and victim. After showing thumb impression affixed on aforesaid statement to victim the same got verified from victim/witness. The statement has been given by witness/victim that the thumb impression was affixed by him. It was stated by victim that on being lured by people and family members she had given her statement before the Court. While the truth is this that accused persons Rakesh, Kedar, Pramod, Jitender and Rupesh have not used force of any type with me and nor had expressed abuses of any type to me and nor had beaten me. It is correct to state that outside the Court I had compromised with accused persons. My thumb impression is affixed on compromise. It is incorrect to