NITIN vs Comm. Of Police

1
Item No. 75 (C-4)


017
O.A. No. 2962/20
CENTRAL ADMINISTRAT
TIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: N
NEW DELHI

O.A. No. 2962/2
2017

Reserved on: 28.09.2026
Pronounced on: 22.10.2026
P

Hon’ble Mr. M
Hon’ble Dr. A
Manish Garg, Member (J)
Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Nitin
Roll No. 4133
Post-Head Con
Aged about 24
S/o Sh. Rohtas
R/o h.no. 434,
Tehsil-kharkh
Haryana-1314
Designation- u
80
nstable AWO/TPO in Delhi Poli
4 years
ice-2013
s Dahiya
, village- pahladpur-kidholi
oda district-sonepat
402
unemployed
…Applicant
(By Advocate

e: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)

Versus

ner of Police, Delhi Police,
te, New Delhi – 110002.
1. Commission
PHQ, IP Estat

2. DCP/Recru
New Police Li
itment Cell, Kingsway Camp,
ines, Delhi.
…Respondents
(By Advocate
: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

2
Item No. 75 (C-4)


017
O.A. No. 2962/20
ORDER

Manish Garg, Member (J) :
Hon’ble Mr. M
In the p
present Original Application, th
he applicant has prayed for
the following r
reliefs:
“
“i)quashing/setting aside the impug
gned order no. 843/RECTT.
C
CELL/SI/DA-II/NPL DATED 25.04
4.2017 passed by respondent
n
o. 2 and
ii)
i) for restoration of the cancelled
candidature of the applicant
an
nd
ii
ii) declaring that acquittal of the
applicant is honourable but
n
ot on technical grounds and
iv
v) for seeking further directions
to the respondents to offer
ap
ppointment to the applicant for
the post of head constable
A
AWO/TPO in Delhi Police-2013 w
with immediate basic training
a
long with all service benefits viz
z. seniority and back wages
ap
pplicable to him.”
2. Highlig
hting the facts of the case,
learned Counsel for the
applicant subm
mitted that the applicant was pro
ovisionally selected for the
post of Head C
Constable (AWO/TPO) in Delhi
i Police-2013 and had duly
disclosed his
involvement in FIR No.138/201
15 under Sections 379/411
IPC, Police S
Station Kharkhoda, Sonipat, in
the attestation form. The
applicant was
thereafter acquitted by the learn
ned SDJM, Kharkhoda, on
15.06.2016 wi
ith the following findings:
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

3
Item No. 75 (C-4)


017
O.A. No. 2962/20
“
“10. On the other hand, the Ld. def
fence counsel pointed out the
d
discrepancies and contradictions
in the statement of the
w
witnesses. He further argued that th
he complainant and the 10 of
th
he case is same and therefore o
on these grounds alone the
ac
ccused is entitled to be acquitted. H
He relied upon supplemental
V
Vol. 15 criminal court judgement 73
37.
1
1. I have heard the rival conten
ntions of both the sides and
g
oing through The case file careful
lly and minutely. I am of the
co
onsidered view that for two basic
illegalities/irregularities the
ca
ase of the prosecution has failed a
and the accused is entitled to
b
e acquitted. These two reasons are
e as follows:

12
2. Firstly the complainant AS
SI Rajesh, PW 2 is also
in
nvestigating officer of the case. He
e arrested the accused on the
ba
asis of formal complainant reco
orded by himself. He being
co
omplainant should not have procee
eded with the investigation of
th
he case. Such practice should not r
resorted so that there may not
b
e any occasion to suspect the fair
r and impartial investigation
re
eliance is placed on the authority c
cited by the defence (supra).

1
3. Secondly, the place of occurren
nce is Delhi Kharkhoda Road
w
which is heavily busy road and t
the time of occurrence and
in
nvestigation is evening @5-6 P.M
M. which is very heavy traffic
ti
ime? Still no efforts made by the inv
vestigating officer to join any
in
ndependent witness during the
investigation. Though, non
jo
oining of independent witness d
don't effect the case of the
pr
rosecution but the condition prec
cedent is that sincere efforts
w
were made by the IO to join pu
ublic as witnesses but none
ag
greed. In the case in hand ther
re is no such plea on the
pr
rosecution side even efforts wer
re made to join as public
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

4
Item No. 75 (C-4)


017
O.A. No. 2962/20
in
ndependent witnesses. Hence it
t is fatal to the case of
pr
rosecution.

1
4. Hence, on the basis of afores
said discussion, the accused
b
ecome entitled to benefit of doubt
and hence, he is acquitted of
he charges framed against him.”
th
2.1. Learned c
counsel drew our attention to th
he aforesaid and submitted
that despite th
he acquittal, the Screening Comm
mittee cancelled applicant’s
candidature v
ide order dated 25.04.2017, ob
bserving that the applicant
had been invo
olved in a serious offence of thef
ft and that his acquittal was
on “technical g
grounds” and not an “honourable
e acquittal”.
2.2. Learned
d Counsel submitted that th
he impugned decision is
arbitrary, non-
-speaking and suffers from non-
-application of mind, as the
Screening Co
ommittee failed to properly con
nsider the actual findings
recorded by t
the learned Trial Court. The le
earned SDJM, Kharkhoda,
after carefully
y considering the evidence, speci
ifically found that “for two
basic illegaliti
ies/irregularities the case of the
prosecution has failed and
the accused is
s entitled to be acquitted.” The l
learned Trial Court further
recorded that t
the complainant himself was als
o the Investigating Officer,
observing that
t “He being complainant should
d not have proceeded with
the investigati
ion of the case” , and further fo
und that no sincere efforts
had been mad
de to join independent witness
ses despite the occurrence
having taken p
place on a busy road during pea
ak traffic hours. The Court
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

5
Item No. 75 (C-4)


consequently
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
held that the non-joining of in
ndependent witnesses was
fatal to the pro
osecution case.
2.3. Learned
d counsel contended that the acq
quittal could not have been
mechanically
characterized as being on “techn
nical grounds”, particularly
when the Tri
ial Court had recorded specif
fic findings regarding the
fairness and
impartiality of the investigat
tion and the absence of
independent c
corroboration. The Screening C
Committee was required to
consider these
e findings while assessing the ap
pplicant’s suitability, rather
than merely re
elying upon the allegations in the
e FIR.
2.4. Learned
d Counsel further contended tha
at the impugned order does
not disclose t
the parameters adopted by the
e Screening Committee or
explain how
the judgment of the Trial C
ourt was evaluated. It is
particularly su
ubmitted that the Screening Com
mmittee failed to consider
the material d
discrepancies concerning the a
alleged recovery, the non-
examination o
of the alleged owner of the
vehicle, the absence of
independent w
witnesses and other irregular
rities emerging from the
criminal case r
record.
2.5. Learned
d counsel further drew our attent
tion to the impugned order
passed by the
respondents, relevant portion of
f which reads as under:
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

6
Item No. 75 (C-4)


017
O.A. No. 2962/20
“
“You candidate, Nitin, Roll no. 413
3380 had applied for the Post
of
f HC(AWO/TPO) in Delhi Polic
ce-2013 and were selected
pr
rovisionally against Roll No. 4133
380 subject to medical fitness,
ve
erification of character & antece
edents and final checking of
d
documents etc. As per your attestat
tion form, you were involved
in
n crl. Case vide FIR NO. 138/2
2015 U/S 379/411 IPC, PS
K
Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana. Y
You have been reportedly
ac
cquitted in the above said case.

T
The brief facts of the case FIR no.
. 138/2015 u/s 379/411 IPC,
P
PS Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana
are that on 25.03.2015, the
ac
ccused namely Nitin intending to ta
ake dishonestly a motor cycle
b
earing chesis no. 805625 out of po
ossession of the complainant
w
without his consent, moved that prop
operty in order to such taking
an
nd further he was found in posse
ession. On the basis of these
a
llegations, a case FIR no. 138/
/2015 u/s 379/411 IPC, PS
K
Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana was r
registered against Nitin.

T
The Hon'ble court of Dr. Kavita K
Kamboj, SDJM, Kharkhoda,
S
Sonepat vide its judgment dated
d 15.06.2016, "it has been
d
decided that the allegation against
the accused becomes entitled
to
o take benefit of doubt and hence, h
he is acquitted of the charges
fr
ramed against him."

In
n pursuance of Hon'ble CAT judgm
ment dated 21.05.2015 in OA
N
No. 546/2014 Rakesh Kumar Mee
na Vs GNCT & Others has
op
pined that....... "where a candi
idate is found involved in
cr
riminal case and though subseque
ently acquitted, a show cause
n
otice should be given to him callin
ng for his reply along with all
th
he aforementioned documents, like
e FIR etc. Only after receipt
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

7
Item No. 75 (C-4)


017
O.A. No. 2962/20
of
f reply of show cause notice, th
he matter should be placed
b
efore Screening Committee for
its view and thereafter on
re
ecommendation of the Screening C
Committee after consideration
of
f the reply of the show cause dec
cision notice, the to take or
a
uthority competent selection/app
pointment/candidature of a
ca
andidate. If the candidate fails to
enclose the photocopy of the
re
ecord of investigation trial, advers
se interference may be drawn
ag
gainst him"

A
Accordingly, your case was exami
ined and you were issued a
sh
how-cause notice vide this offic
ce memo no. 7338/RECTT.
C
CELL/SI/DA-II/NPL DATED 04.
11.2016 as to why your
ca
andidature for the post of HC (A
AWO/TPO) in Delhi Police-
2
013 should not be cancelled for th
he reason mentioned therein
by
y giving 15 days' time, failing whic
ch it would be presumed that
yo
ou have nothing to say in your d
defence and the case will be
d
decided ex-parte on its merit. You
had sent reply of the show
ca
ause notice on 16.11.2016. The sc
creening committee examined
yo
our case in the light of the provi
isions contained in Standing
O
Order no. 398/2016, recent observ
vations/guidelines of Hon'ble
ap
pex court in case of AVTAR SING
GH VS UOI & ORS (2016) 8
S
SCC 471, civil appeal no. 4965/
/2013- CP, Delhi vs Shani
K
Kumar, pleas taken by you in reply
to the show cause notice and
is
s of the considered view that you
u were involved in a serious
of
ffence i.e. theft of vehicle. You w
were also caught red handed
w
with the stolen motorcycle. You w
were acquittal from serious
ch
harges is on technical grounds
ds and not an honourable
ac
cquittal. Your pleas are unconvin
cing and have no weight. In
vi
iew of the above, the screening c
committee is of the view that
yo
ou are not fit to be inducted in po
olice service in the interest of
p
ublic service and security of th
he society. Therefore, your
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

8
Item No. 75 (C-4)


017
O.A. No. 2962/20
ca
andidature for the post of HC(
(AWO/TPO)-2013 is hereby
ancelled with immediate effect.”
ca
2.6. Learned
d counsel argued that the Screen
ning Committee cannot sit
in appeal ove
er the judgment of the compet
tent criminal court. If the
respondents in
ntended to arrive at a conclusio
on contrary to the findings
recorded by
the Trial Court, they ought t
to have had some cogent
material to ju
ustify such conclusion; however
r, no independent enquiry
was conducte
ed and the decision was based
d merely on the existing
criminal case
record. Accordingly, learned C
Counsel submitted that the
impugned can
ncellation of candidature is vitia
ated by non-application of
mind, arbitrari
iness and failure to consider the
e relevant judicial findings,
and therefore d
deserves to be quashed and set a
aside.
3. Opposin
ng the grant of relief, learned c
ounsel for the respondents
submitted that
t the applicant’s candidature w
was duly considered by the
Screening Com
mmittee in accordance with Sta
anding Order No.398/2016,
the guidelines
laid down by the Hon’ble Supr
reme Court in Avtar Singh
v. Union of In
ndia & Ors ., (2016) 8 SCC 471 ,
, and the judgment in C.P.,
Delhi v. Shan
ni Kumar , Civil Appeal No.4965
5/2013 . Upon consideration
of the applican
nt’s involvement in a serious of
ffence relating to theft of a
vehicle, the S
Screening Committee found him
m unsuitable for induction
into the Delhi
Police and accordingly cancelle
d his candidature.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

9
Item No. 75 (C-4)


3.1. Learned
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
d Counsel submitted that the ap
pplicant’s acquittal was not
an honourable
e acquittal but an acquittal on be
enefit of doubt, and that the
Screening Co
ommittee was entitled to i
independently assess the
applicant’s su
uitability notwithstanding such a
acquittal. It was contended
that the impu
ugned order is a reasoned and
speaking decision and is
neither arbitr
rary nor violative of Articles
s 14, 16 or 21 of the
Constitution.
3.2. Relianc
e was further placed upon C.P
P., Delhi v. Mehar Singh ,
Civil Appeal N
No.4842/2013 , wherein, accordi
ing to the learned counsel,
the Screening
Committee is entitled to consid
der whether an acquittal is
based on seri
ious flaws in the prosecution c
case or material witnesses
turning hostile
e, and to assess the nature and
d extent of the candidate’s
involvement a
and his propensity in the context
of suitability for the police
force.
3.3. Learned
d Counsel further relied upon
the observation in C.P.,
Delhi v. Sha
ni Kumar , (supra)to contend t
that the police force is a
disciplined fo
orce requiring persons of utm
most rectitude, impeccable
character and
d integrity, and that even whe
ere a candidate has been
acquitted or d
discharged, the acquittal has to
be examined to determine
whether he ha
s been completely exonerated.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

10
Item No. 75 (C-4)


3.4. Conclud
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
ding the arguments, learned co
ounsel submitted that the
Screening Co
ommittee, having considered
the applicant’s case in
accordance w
with the applicable policy and
the aforesaid judgments,
rightly found
him unsuitable for appointm
ment in the Delhi Police.
Accordingly,
the cancellation of candidature
is legal and justified, and
the O.A. is liab
ble to be dismissed.
4. In rejoin
nder to the arguments put forth
by the learned counsel for
the responden
nts, learned Counsel for the ap
pplicant submitted that the
jurisdiction of
f the Screening Committee is n
not under challenge; rather,
the challenge
is to the manner in which such
jurisdiction was exercised,
as the Scree
ening Committee failed to co
onsider the alleged non-
compliance w
ith the provisions of the Code of
f Criminal Procedure, 1973
by the Investig
gating Officer-cum-Complainant
t, did not properly examine
the effect of s
such procedural irregularities on
n the applicant’s acquittal,
and no oral he
earing was afforded to the appli
icant before cancellation of
his candidatur
re.
4.1. Support
ting the applicant’s case, learned
d counsel for the applicant
placed relianc
e upon the decision rendered by
the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Mah
endra Solanki Vs. The Comm
missioner of Police & Anr.
(W.P. (C) No.
2219/2023) decided on 10.03.20
023.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

11
Item No. 75 (C-4)


5. Heard l
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
learned counsel for the respectiv
ve parties and perused the
pleadings avai
ilable on record.
6. ANALY
YSIS :
6.1. Having c
considered the rival submissions
s and perused the material
available on r
record, we find that the short
question which arises for
consideration
is whether the Screening Comm
mittee, while exercising its
jurisdiction to
o assess the suitability of the app
plicant, has considered the
relevant facts
and circumstances of the crimin
nal case in an objective and
reasonable ma
anner.
6.2. At the out
tset, it is not in dispute that the
applicant had disclosed his
involvement i
n FIR No.138/2015 in the attes
station form. Thus, there is
no allegation
of suppression or concealment o
of the criminal case by the
applicant. The
e respondents were, therefore,
required to examine the
applicant's sui
itability on the basis of the actu
ual material emerging from
the criminal
proceedings, including the na
ature and manner of his
acquittal.
6.3. The learn
ned Trial Court, while acquitti
ing the applicant, did not
merely record
d an acquittal on the basis of
f absence of evidence. It
specifically no
oticed two basic illegalities/irreg
gularities in the prosecution
case. The firs
t was that the complainant, AS
SI Rajesh, was himself the
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

12
Item No. 75 (C-4)


Investigating
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
Officer and had proceeded w
with the investigation after
lodging the c
omplaint himself. The learned
Trial Court observed that
such a practice
e ought not to be resorted to so a
as to avoid any occasion to
suspect the fa
fairness and impartiality of the
e investigation. The Court
further found t
that, despite the alleged occurren
nce having taken place on a
busy road dur
ring peak traffic hours, no sincer
re effort had been made to
associate any
independent public witness and
d held the said omission to
be fatal to the
prosecution case.
6.4. In the af
foresaid factual background, th
he characterization of the
acquittal by t
the Screening Committee as be
eing merely on “technical
grounds” doe
es not appear to be suppor
rted by any independent
consideration
of the findings recorded by the
e learned Trial Court. The
Screening Com
mmittee was certainly entitled to
o examine the effect of the
acquittal whil
le determining suitability; how
wever, such power did not
dispense with
h the requirement of examinin
ng the actual basis of the
acquittal and
the material circumstances em
merging from the criminal
proceedings.
6.5. The imp
mpugned order, however, proc
ceeds principally on the
allegation that
t the applicant was involved in
n a serious offence of theft
and that he wa
as allegedly caught red-handed w
with the stolen motorcycle.
Significantly,
the Screening Committee has n
not adverted to the specific
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

13
Item No. 75 (C-4)


findings of the
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
e learned Trial Court regarding th
he manner of investigation,
the complaina
ant himself being the Investigati
ing Officer, the absence of
sincere effort
s to join independent witnesse
es, or the effect of these
circumstances
s upon the prosecution case. Th
he mere description of the
acquittal as be
eing on “technical grounds” cann
not, in our view, substitute
for an objectiv
ve consideration of these relevan
nt circumstances.
6.6. The princ
ciple laid down by the Hon’bl
le High Court of Delhi in
Mahendra So
olanki v. The Commissioner of
f Police & Anr . , W.P.(C)
No.2219/2023
3, decided on 10.03.2023, is al
so apposite to this aspect.
The Hon’ble
High Court, while considering
g the principles governing
antecedent ve
erification, reiterated that althou
ugh the employer has the
right to consid
der the antecedents even where a
a criminal case has ended in
acquittal, the
exercise of such power has to b
be in a reasonable manner
with objectivi
ity and with due regard to the
facts of each case. It was
further observ
ved that the procedure adopted
by the authority has to be
fair and reaso
nable. The relevant portion of t
the said judgment reads as
under:
“
“17. In the light of aforesaid legal p
position, there cannot be any
d
dispute that an applicant participati
ing in the selection process is
m
mandated to furnish the correct
information in respect of
ch
haracter and antecedents in the r
requisite application form as
w
well as attestation/verification form
m. In case the information is
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

14
Item No. 75 (C-4)


017
O.A. No. 2962/20
fo
ound to be suppressed, concealed
or incorrectly declared and
la
ater on comes to the knowledge o
of the employer, appropriate
re
ecourse may be adopted by the em
mployer in its discretion for
ca
ancelling the candidature or term
minating the services of the
em
mployee. However, the exercise
of power has to be in a
re
easonable manner with objectivity
y having regards to the facts
in
n each case. The yardstick to be a
applied depends not only on
th
he nature of the post, duties/service
es but as well as the nature of
cr
riminal involvement i.e. whether
r it is of trivial nature or
o
therwise. Even where the em
mployee makes a truthful
d
declaration on a concluded crimina
al case, the employer still has
a
right to consider the antecedents
and the employer cannot be
co
ompelled to employ the candidate.

1
8. We are of the considered view
w that keeping in perspective
th
he guidelines as laid down in
Avtar Singh (supra), the
co
ompetent authority in the presen
nt case was also bound to
co
onsider the suitability of the peti
itioner having regard to the
tr
rivial nature of offence and the
fact that the charges were
n
either grave nor involved moral tu
urpitude, prior to terminating
h
is Neutral Citation Number: 202
23/DHC/001713 services.The
sa
ame is necessary to ensure that in
nquiry done by the Authority
co
oncerned is 'fair and reasonable
e' as contemplated even in
Sa
Satish Chandra 's case (supra).In t
the absence of said exercise
b
eing undertaken, the fact of supp
ppression or concealment of
in
nvolvement even in trivial cases
s would lead to automatic
ca
ancelling of candidature or termin
ation of services, in violation
of
f guidelines envisaged in para 3
38.4.1 as laid down inAvtar
ove .”

S
Singh 's case (supra ), referred to abo
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

15
Item No. 75 (C-4)


6.7. The afore
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
esaid principle assumes greater
significance in the present
case since the
applicant had admittedly made
a truthful disclosure of his
criminal case.
The issue before the Screening
Committee was, therefore,
not one of co
oncealment, but whether, on an
objective consideration of
the nature of
the allegations, the manner of
investigation, the findings
recorded by t
the learned Trial Court, and t
the resultant acquittal, the
applicant cou
uld be regarded as unsuitabl
le for appointment. The
impugned orde
er does not demonstrate such an
exercise.
6.8. We are co
onscious of the settled position t
that acquittal by itself does
not confer an i
indefeasible right upon a candida
ate to appointment and that
the employer
is entitled to independently ass
sess suitability, particularly
in the case of
f recruitment to the police forc
e. At the same time, such
discretion cann
not be exercised mechanically. T
The Hon’ble High Court in
Mahendra So
olanki (supra) has emphasized th
hat the authority is required
to consider th
he relevant facts objectively a
and that the fairness and
reasonablenes
s of the procedure adopted by
y the authority is open to
judicial scrutin
ny.
6.9. In the pre
esent case, the Screening Comm
mittee has not shown as to
why the spec
cific findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court were
insufficient to
o distinguish the applicant's ca
ase from a case where an
acquittal may
legitimately be treated as arising
g from a serious flaw in the
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

16
Item No. 75 (C-4)


prosecution o
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
or from witnesses having tur
rned hostile. Rather, the
impugned ord
der merely records the conclusio
on that the acquittal was on
technical grou
unds and that the applicant was
s therefore unfit for police
service. Such
conclusion, without consideratio
on of the material findings
forming the b
basis of the acquittal, reflects
a failure to undertake the
individualized
d assessment required in a case o
f this nature.
6.10. We may
y also observe that the respon
ndents' reliance upon C.P.,
Delhi v. Shan
ni Kumar , (supra) and C.P., Delh
hi v. Mehar Singh (supra),
does not adv
ance their case to the extent
asserted. Those decisions
recognize the
authority of the Screening C
Committee to examine the
nature and ma
anner of acquittal and the antece
edents of a candidate; they
do not dispen
nse with an objective consider
ration of the facts of the
individual case
e. In the present case, the very m
material which was required
to be examine
ed, namely, the specific findings
s of the learned Trial Court
regarding the
investigation and prosecution
n evidence, has not been
meaningfully d
dealt with in the impugned order
r.
6.11 . The cont
tention of the respondents that t
the applicant was allegedly
“caught red
handed” also cannot, by itse
elf, sustain the impugned
decision whe
n the learned Trial Court, u
upon consideration of the
prosecution ca
ase, acquitted the applicant and
recorded specific findings
regarding the
manner of investigation and th
he absence of independent
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

17
Item No. 75 (C-4)


corroboration.
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
. The Screening Committee
could not substitute the
allegations for
rming the basis of the FIR for th
he findings emerging from
the concluded
criminal proceedings without as
ssigning cogent reasons for
doing so.
6.12 . We, th
herefore, find that although t
the Screening Committee
possessed the
jurisdiction to assess the applica
ant's suitability, the manner
in which such
h jurisdiction has been exercise
d in the present case does
not meet the r
requirement of an objective and
d reasoned consideration of
the relevant m
material. The decision to treat
the acquittal as being on
“technical gro
ounds” appears to have been re
eached without adequately
considering th
he findings recorded by the learn
ned Trial Court and the fact
that the applic
cant had disclosed his involvemen
nt in the criminal case.
7. CONCL
LUSION :
7.1. In view
of the aforesaid discussion, t
the impugned order dated
25.04.2017 ca
ancelling the applicant's candid
dature cannot be sustained
and is accordin
ngly quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to
appoint the ap
pplicant for appointment to the
e post of Head Constable
(AWO/TPO) i
in Delhi Police-2013 in accordan
nce with law.
7.2. Consequ
uential benefits on a notional ba
sis, if otherwise admissible
under the appl
licable rules, shall follow.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

18
Item No. 75 (C-4)


7.3. The OA
017
O.A. No. 2962/20
A is allowed in the aforesaid term
ms. Pending M.A.(s), if any,
shall stand dis
sposed of.
7.4. There sh
hall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S
Member (A

/as/
S. Khati)
A)
(Manish Garg)
Member (J)
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:01:07+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI