Jitender Singh vs Comm. Of Police

1
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi

O.A. No . 1290/2020


Reserved on:- 30.09.2026
Pronounced on:- 22.10.2026


Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

Jitender Singh
S/o Shri. Bablu Singh
R/o Village Amipur Bangar
Post Dhanauri Kalan
Bulandshahar-203201 (U.P.)
...Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Mayank Bansal)

Versus

1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, l.P. Estate,
I.T.O., New Delhi.

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment)
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
New Delhi-110009.

…Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Kr. Mishra)


ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

2
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

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

By way of the present O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“(A) Quash and set aside the letter No. XII/100/18/10395/Rectt.
Cell (CT)/R-IV/NPL dated 30.07.2019, whereby the respondents
have cancelled the candidature of applicant to the post of
Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police-2016, in the interest
of justice.

(B) Direct the respondents to give appointment to the post of
Constable (Executive) Male against the recruitment Delhi
Police-2016 with all consequential benefits.

(C) Any other relief the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the
applicant contended that the applicant’s candidature for the post of
Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police pursuant to the recruitment
process initiated in 2016 was illegally cancelled vide order dated
30.07.2019, despite his having disclosed his involvement in FIR No.
448/2017 dated 20.09.2017, registered under Sections
147/148/149/323/324/504/506 IPC and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act at
Police Station Kakod, District Bulandshahar, at the first available
opportunity in his attestation form dated 06.03.2018.

2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was acquitted
after a full-fledged trial by the learned Additional District and Sessions
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

3
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

Judge, Bulandshahar, vide judgment dated 13.03.2019, wherein the
prosecution witnesses did not substantiate the allegations against him,
yet the respondents cancelled his candidature without properly
appreciating the acquittal judgment and the evidence on record. The
applicant alleged that the impugned action was arbitrary, discriminatory
and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution,
particularly when there was neither concealment of the criminal case nor
any prior criminal history.

2.2. Learned counsel further highlighted the following paragraphs of
the Trial Court judgment dated 13.03.2019 :
“In today perspective it is also possible that the witnesses may get
affected by allurement of witnesses. Although it is also not denied
from the possibility that during the pendency of the case the main
witnesses got affected by giving allurement of money or by force
caused coercion adverse effect which is very common in today time.
But merely on the basis of possibility the accused persons may not
be convicted/held guilty.
In the present case from the oral evidence and documentary
evidence there is material and gross irregularity discrepancies
which is contradictory with each other thereby arises doubts on the
statement of prosecution and merely on the basis of doubt the
charges may not be deemed as proved because doubt may not took
the place of evidence. In this regard the Hon'ble supreme court in its
judgment 2001 Scc (Criminal) 652 Dhanajay Reddy vs State of
Karnataka propunded this law that-
"Against the accused persons how much the doubt is strong merely
on the basis of it the charges levelled against the accused persons
may not be deemed to be proved because the doubt may not took the
place of evidence ever. The judicial decisions is always based on
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

4
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

facts and provisions of law and not merely on the basis of doubts
and moral circumstances".

From the Prosecution side PW-1 Head const. 19 Anangpal is got
examined. This witness is a formal witness. He had registered the
case on the basis of complaint of the complainant of the case on
dated 21.09.2017 c.no . 448/17 Chik kita done and case is registered
and entry is made in the G.D. The witness proved the Chik as
Exhibit A-1 and GD as Exhibit A-3 form.
In this case so far as the question of prosecution party is concerned
related to its presenting of documentary evidence and medical
examination report is in question, its formal proof is made free by
the Ld. Counsel of accused persons under Section 294 of Criminal
Procedure Code provisions and there is no dispute related to
execution of these documents. It is pertinent to mention here that
although in this case from the accused persons side the prosecution
documents, medical examination reports is formally admitted its
truth but till the facts of the incident is not proved beyond
reasonable doubts from prosecution party from their material
witnesses till than merely formal truth being admitted on its basis
the accused persons may not be convicted under the alleged
charges. In the present case from the prosecution side in support of
the prosecution statement the material witnesses which got
examined from their statement the facts of incident is not proved
beyond reasonable doubts.
Therefore, while going through all the available documents in the
case file all the oral and documentary evidences and the above
mentioned legal arrangements and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case on its perusal and after hearing the Ld.
Counsel for both the parties the detail arguments at length the Court
reaches to this conclusion that ultimately the prosecution failed to
prove his statement beyond all reasonable doubts under all
circumstances presumed. Therefore, the accused persons Jitendra,
Vishal, Annu, Annu, Satendra, Teetu, Bablu, Rajpal, Manish, Anil,
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

5
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

Ashok, Satpal, Lokesh, Kalu, Sachin, Naimpal, Bijendra, and Sunil
is liable to be acquitted from the alleged charges under Section-
147,148,323/149,324/149,504,506 IPC and 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of
Schedule caste and schedule Tribe (PC) Act, Police Station Kakore
District Bulandshar is liable to be acquitted.
The injured Ramwati and Ajay kumar had not supported the
prosecution evidence due to which the whole prosecution procedure
started. From them itself the prosecution statement is not proved.
Therefore, against them case under Section 344 of Cr.P.C is to be
tried is justiciable.
ORDER
Special Session Trial No. 3073 year 2018, State vs Jitendra etc in
which the accused persons Jitendra, Vishal, Annu, Satendra, Teetu,
Bablu, Rajpal, Manish, Anil, Ashok, Satpal, Lokesh, Kalu, Sachin,
Nampal, Bijendra, and Sunil is acquitted from the charges of
offences punishable under Section-147,148, 323/149, 324/149, 504,
506, I.P.C and 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule
Tribe (Prevention of Cruelty) Act.
The accused persons in the present case is on bail, there personnel
bail bond is cancelled and sureties is acquitted from their liabilities.
The accused persons within seven days under section 473 Cr. P.C to
present a personnel bond of Rs. 20,000/- and equal amount of two-
two sureties in this regard with this intention to present that against
this judgment any appeal filed or any petition filed in this regard
any notice issued by Court they shall present themselves before the
Hon'ble High Court. The above personnel bond and bail bond shall
be valid for six months from the date of its presentation.
The injured persons Ramwati and Ajay Kumar against them charges
for giving false evidence under Section-344 Cr. P.C miscellaneous
case is registered and they were given notice for dated 30.03.2019.”
2.3. Relying upon the afore-quoted judgment of the Trial Court as well
as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

6
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

Singh v. Union of India (SLP No. 20525/2011), the applicant
contended that the respondents had misapplied the law governing
recruitment of candidates acquitted in criminal cases and prayed for
quashing of the impugned cancellation order and grant of consequential
relief.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the cancellation of the applicant’s candidature for the
post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police vide order dated
30.07.2019 was legal and justified, as the Screening Committee, in
accordance with Standing Order No. 398/2018, had duly examined the
applicant’s suitability in view of his involvement in FIR No. 448/2017
registered under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/504/506 IPC and the
SC/ST Act.

3.1. It was submitted that the applicant’s acquittal vide judgment dated
13.03.2019 was not a clean acquittal, as the material prosecution
witnesses, including the injured witnesses, had turned hostile, leading
the Screening Committee to form the view that the applicant had
actively participated in the incident and that the witnesses had been won
over during trial.

3.2. Relying upon Avtar Singh v. Union of India , (supra);
Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Mehar Singh , Civil Appeal No.
4842/2013; Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Shani Kumar , Civil
Appeal No. 4965/2013; Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Others ,
Civil Appeal No. 5671/2012; State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

7
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

Parvez Khan ; and Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration &
Others v. Pradeep Kumar , Civil Appeal No. 67/2018, learned counsel
argued that the Screening Committee was competent to assess the nature
of the allegations, the circumstances of acquittal and the applicant’s
suitability for appointment to a disciplined police force, and that mere
disclosure of the criminal case or acquittal did not confer an automatic
right to appointment.

3.3. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the following case
laws:
(i) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of M.P. &
Ors. Vs. Rajkumar Yadav (CA No. 3279/2026).
(ii) Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Anita Vs.
Commissioner of Polie & Anr. (W.P. (C) No. 8751/2021).
(iii) Judgments of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.
530/2025 and O.A. No. 5027/2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, in the rejoinder, contended that
the respondents’ assertion that the applicant’s reply to the show-cause
notice had been considered was an afterthought, as the impugned action
did not reflect any consideration of the said reply, and the plea had been
conveniently introduced in the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel
further drew our attention to the impugned order, relevant para of which,
reads as under:
Subject:-Recruitment to the post of Const. (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police-
“
2016. (Cancellation of candidature] - regarding.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

8
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV


You candidate, Jitendra Singh [Roll No.2201325349) S/o Shri Bablu
Singh had applied to the post of Const. (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police during
the recruitment held in the year 2016 and selected provisionally, subject
to the satisfactory verification of your character & antecedents, medical
fitness and final checking of documents etc.

On receipt of your character & antecedents report from
SSP/Bulandshahar (UP), it was revealed that you were involved in a
criminal case FIR No.448/2017 u/s. 147/148/149/323/324/504/506 IPC &
3(1) SC/ST Act, PS/Kakod (UP) which was perding trial. On scrutiny of
records, it was revealed that you had disclosed the facts of your
involvement in the above said criminal case in the relevant column of
Attestation Form filled up by you on 06.03.2018 and the case was under
trial.

As per rules/instructions framed on the subject, a Show Cause Notice was
issued to you vide this office letter No.1864/Rectt. (CT)/R-IV/NPL dated
20.02.2019, proposing therein for cancellation of your candidature to the
post in question for the reasons mentioned therein. In response to Show
Cause Notice, you submitted your reply alongwith required documents on
20.03.2019.

Accordingly, your case was placed before the Screening Committee
constituted by the Commissioner of Police/Delhi to assess your suitability
in Delhi Police due to your involvement/acquittal in criminal case FIR
No.448/2017. As per Standing Orde No.398/2018, the Committee
examined your case keeping in view of the observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court passed in SLPS (C) No.20525/2011- Avtar Singh Vs UCI &
others, Civil Appeal No.4842/2013-CP/Delhi Vs Mehar Singh with Civil
Appeal No.4965/2013-CP/Delhi & others Vs Shani Kumar, Civil Appeal
No.5671/2012 - Jainendra Singh Vs State of UP and others, Civil Appeal
No. 10613/2014-State of M.P. & others Vs Parvez Khan and Civil Appeal
No.67/2018 Union Territory Chandigarh Administration & others Vs
Pradeep Kumar & others for appointment in Delhi Police.

The Screening Committee observed that the alleged incident reported vide
case FIR No.448/2017 u/s. 147/148/323/149/324/504/506 IPC & SC/ST
Act. PS/Kakod, District Bulandshahar (UP) had actually taken place on
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

9
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

20.09.2017 around 12.00 noon and the victims (1) Ajay Kumar S/o Shri
Ganga Ram, (ii) Madan Pal S/o Shri Pyare Lal, (iii) Mrs. Ramvati W/o
Shri Gajraj Singh all residents of Village Amipur Bangar, PS/Kakod
received injuries, as opined by Chief Medical officer/Primary Health
Centre, Vair, District Bulandshahar (UP).

The Screening Committee also observed that during the course of
investigation, Shri Raghvendra Kumar Mishra, the Divisional Officer,
Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar (UP) had recorded the statement of
victims and all of them had re-iterated the allegations leveled in the FIR
that they were beaten by alleged Jitendra Singh (you) & Others and the
alleged had used derogatory and abusive language by their caste.

The Court of Addl. Sessions Judge/Spl. Judge (SC & ST Act),
Bulandshahar (UP) Shri Vikas Kumar Pratham has clearly mentioned in
his judgment passed on 13.03.2019 that the injured PWs. Mrs. Ramvati &
Ajay Kumar did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. The Ld.
Court had taken an adverse view in the case and directed to proceed u/s.
344 Cr.P.C. against the PWs.

In view of facts explained above, the Screening Committee further
observed that you alongwith your associates had beaten Ajay, Ramvati &
others and were actively involved in the subject case but somehow were
able to manage later on by winning over the PWs at the time of trial in the
Ld. Court

As such, the Screening Committee did not recommend your name for
appointment in Delhi Police. Hence, the Show Cause Notice issued to you
vide letter No. XII/100/18/1864/Rectt. (CT)/R-IV/NPL dated 20.02.2019 is
confirmed and your candidature to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in
Delhi Police-2016 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. ”

5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
pleadings available on record.





ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

10
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record,
including the judgment dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahar, and the
impugned order dated 30.07.2019 cancelling the candidature of the
applicant.
6.2. It is not in dispute that the applicant was involved in FIR No. 448/2017,
registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC, read
with Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act. The allegations were undoubtedly
serious in nature, involving alleged assault and the use of caste-based
derogatory language. The applicant was, however, acquitted by the learned
Trial Court vide judgment dated 13.03.2019, upon a finding that the
prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The learned Trial Court also recorded that the injured witnesses, namely,
Ramvati and Ajay Kumar, had not supported the prosecution during trial
and directed initiation of proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. against
them in relation to the alleged giving of false evidence.
6.3. We are conscious of the settled legal position that acquittal in a criminal
case does not, by itself, confer an automatic or indefeasible right to
appointment, particularly in a disciplined force such as Delhi Police. The
competent authority is entitled to examine the nature of the allegations, the
material collected during investigation, and the circumstances resulting in
acquittal while assessing the suitability of a candidate. At the same time,
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

11
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

such discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised fairly, reasonably,
and upon due consideration of the relevant material. The assessment of
suitability cannot be founded upon conjecture or a presumption of guilt
merely because the allegations were serious or the prosecution witnesses did
not support the prosecution during trial.
6.4. In this context, we consider it appropriate to refer to the decision of this
Tribunal in Ashwani Malik v. Delhi Police & Others , O.A. No. 4542/2024,
decided on 24.02.2026. In the said case, while examining the cancellation of
candidature following acquittal in a criminal case, this Tribunal emphasized
that the Screening Committee must undertake a fair, reasoned and
contextual assessment of the candidate's suitability. It was observed that the
mere fact that witnesses had turned hostile could not, without an appropriate
assessment of the surrounding circumstances, automatically be treated as
reflecting adversely upon the character and integrity of the candidate. The
Tribunal further took note of the trial court's initiation of proceedings under
Section 344 Cr.P.C. against the complainant and examined its significance
in the overall factual setting of that case.
6.5. The aforesaid decision also makes it clear that the Screening
Committee's power to assess suitability notwithstanding acquittal must be
exercised with due regard to all relevant circumstances. Although the facts
of O.A. No. 4542/2024 included the additional circumstance that the
candidate was a juvenile at the time of the alleged incident, the broader
principle of fair, reasonable, and non-mechanical assessment of suitability
remains relevant to the present case. The absence of such an additional
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

12
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

circumstance does not dispense with the obligation of the competent
authority to base its decision on a proper evaluation of the material available
on record.
6.6. In the present case, the impugned order records that the victims had
reiterated their allegations during the investigation and that medical
evidence indicated injuries. These circumstances were relevant and could
legitimately be considered by the Screening Committee. However, the
impugned order proceeds further to conclude that the applicant and his
associates had actively participated in the incident and had subsequently
managed to win over the prosecution witnesses during trial. Such an
inference, having serious consequences for the applicant's public
employment, required an adequate and reasoned assessment of the material
supporting it, particularly when the learned Trial Court had acquitted the
applicant and had separately directed proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C.
against two injured witnesses.
6.7. The direction for proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. cannot, by
itself, be treated as a final determination that the allegations against the
applicant were false. Equally, the fact that the injured witnesses did not
support the prosecution cannot, without a properly reasoned assessment of
the surrounding circumstances and supporting material, be treated as
conclusive proof that the applicant had managed to influence or win over
those witnesses. The impugned order does not adequately demonstrate how
the relevant circumstances, including the findings recorded in the acquittal
judgment and the direction under Section 344 Cr.P.C., were weighed against
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

13
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

the material collected during the investigation before arriving at the
conclusion adverse to the applicant.
6.8. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the issue is not whether
the Screening Committee was competent to examine the applicant's
suitability notwithstanding his acquittal, but whether the discretion vested in
it was exercised through a fair, balanced, and adequately reasoned
assessment of the material circumstances. The seriousness of the allegations
and the requirements of service in Delhi Police are undoubtedly relevant
considerations; however, they cannot substitute for an objective assessment
of the individual case. The principles reiterated by this Tribunal in O.A. No.
4542/2024 reinforce the requirement that the circumstances surrounding
acquittal and the material relied upon for drawing an adverse inference must
be considered in a reasoned and contextual manner.
6.9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the
impugned order does not adequately demonstrate such an assessment. The
conclusion regarding the applicant's alleged role in winning over the
prosecution witnesses has been drawn without a sufficiently reasoned
examination of the relevant circumstances emerging from the trial court
judgment. The decision, therefore, cannot be sustained in its present form.
This conclusion, however, shall not be construed as a declaration that the
applicant is automatically entitled to appointment merely because he was
acquitted. The competent authority remains entitled to assess his suitability
in accordance with law, but such assessment must be based on relevant
material and a reasoned consideration of the facts of the case.
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI

14
Item No. 57 O.A. No. 1290/2020
Court No. IV

7. CONCLUSION
7.1. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is
allowed. The impugned order dated 30.07.2019 cancelling the candidature
of the applicant is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are
directed to reconsider the applicant's case for appointment to the post of
Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police in the light of the judgment
dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court, the direction for
proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C., the material available on record, and
the principles discussed hereinabove, including those reiterated in O.A. No.
4542/2024.
7.2. The respondents shall undertake the aforesaid exercise by passing a
reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. In the event the applicant is found otherwise
eligible and suitable, his candidature shall be considered for appointment in
accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. The consequential
benefits, if any, shall be governed by the decision taken by the competent
authority in accordance with law.
7.3. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.

(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)

/as/
ANKIT
SAKLANI
2026.10.26 11:00:35+
05'30'
ANKIT
SAKLA
NI