$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 30.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 10.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 10.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 9485/2020 RAHUL BANSAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan and Ms.

Ridhi Dua, Advs.

versus THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the correctness of the Judgment dated 18.03.2020 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟], whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟], dismissed the O.A. No.2365/2017. The Petitioner also assails the show cause notice dated 19.11.2015, as well as the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Competent Authority, cancelling his candidature.

2. Herein, the Petitioner contends that, having truthfully disclosed his involvement in the criminal case and having subsequently been acquitted by the Trial Court, the Respondents were not justified in denying him appointment.

3. Accordingly, the issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Competent Authority rejecting the Petitioner‟s appointment on compassionate grounds, upon an assessment of his antecedents and suitability for induction into the Delhi Police.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

5. The Petitioner‟s father died in the year 2013 and his name was approved for appointment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds in the year 2014, subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness, and completion of requisite formalities.

6. During verification, it was revealed that the Petitioner had been involved in a criminal case vide FIR No.138/2009 relating to various provisions of the IPC. Though the Petitioner had disclosed such involvement in the attestation form, he had been acquitted by the Trial Court vide order dated 23.11.2011, with prosecution witnesses turning hostile, which was treated by the authorities as a technical acquittal rather than a clean acquittal.

7. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued on 19.11.2015 as to why his candidature for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) should not be cancelled. After considering his reply to the show cause notice, the Screening Committee found it not convincing and remarked that the Petitioner has shown involvement in serious criminal cases and has reflected unsuitability for appointment in a disciplined force like the Delhi Police.

8. Thereafter, his candidature was cancelled vide order dated 14.03.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Recruitment Cell.

9. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner challenged the aforesaid Order dated 14.03.2016 and the show cause notice dated 19.11.2015 before the Tribunal in O.A. No.2365/2017, contending that since he had truthfully disclosed the criminal case and stood acquitted, the denial of appointment was unjustified.

10. Pursuant thereto, the Tribunal vide the Impugned Judgment, while dismissing the O.A., held that the competent authority had applied its mind and was justified in assessing the Petitioner‟s antecedents, and that no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity could be discerned in the decision-making process.

11. Aggrieved by the same, the present Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner.

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES:

12. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and, with their able assistance, perused the paperbook.

13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that:

i. The Petitioner had truthfully disclosed his involvement in the criminal case in the attestation form and had not sup