Kislay Thakur vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~105
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 10.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 18276/2025
KISLAY THAKUR .....Petitioner
Through: Md. Azam Ansari and Mr. Afjal
Ansari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. N. Balraj, SPC, Mr. Deepansh
Sharma, GP, Ms. Meghna Rao, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )
CM APPL. 14519/2026 (early hearing)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
2. The application is disposed of. The writ petition is taken up for
hearing.
W.P.(C) 18276/2025, CM APPL. 14518/2026
3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“(A) Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing and setting
aside the respondents’ order dated 09.10.2025 being
Annexure P-1 withdrawing the offer of appointment of
the petitioner with urgent directions to the respondents
to appoint the petitioner forthwith in service with all
consequential benefits including the Seniority,
promotion and back wages etc.
(B) Pass a writ of mandamus directing the respondents
to keep one post vacant for the petitioner during the
pendency of this writ petition and in case, all posts are
already filled up, then be further pleased to direct
respondents to Either create one additional or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
20:50:36
W.P.(C) 18276/2025 Page 1 of 8

supernumerary post for the petitioner Or to
accommodate the petitioner out of whatever various
miscellaneous quotas available with the respondents.”
4. In effect, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.10.2025
whereby the offer of appointment of the petitioner dated 20.12.2024 was
withdrawn with immediate effect.
5. The facts, which are required to be noticed, are that the petitioner had
applied for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Force. He
qualified all stages of selection process and was declared fit. The petitioner
was directed to report to CISF, RTC, Arakkonam for induction and basic
training.
6. On the petitioner reporting to the aforesaid place, the standard
verification process revealed through background check that, a criminal case
was registered against him at Police Station Kamtual, District Darbhanga,
Bihar being FIR No. 134/2024 dated 22.05.2024 for offences under Section
341/323/325/307/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It may
be stated here that the charges included voluntary grievous hurt (Section 325
IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC). The said FIR resulted in a
judgment dated 25.09.2025 of the Court of Sessions, Darbhanga acquitting
the accused including the petitioner.
7. The case of the respondents is that the acquittal was not based on
merits but on hostile testimony of witnesses. Reliance has been placed by
the respondents on the key prosecution witness, who during his cross-
examination stated that he did not witness the incident personally and have
settled the matter amicably.
8. It is the case of the respondents that the Investigating Officer (‘IO’)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
20:50:36
W.P.(C) 18276/2025 Page 2 of 8

and the medical witnesses were not examined. The respondents have made
reference to the fact that the Court had concluded that the prosecution had
failed to prove the case beyond the doubt. The conclusion in the impugned
order is in paragraphs 6 to 9, which we reproduce as under:-
“06. As per Para 2(V) of MHA Guidelines dated
01.02.2012, candidates against whom a charge sheet
has been filed for serious offences or offences involving
moral turpitude and who have been acquitted on the
grounds of compromise, benefit of doubt, or hostile a
shall generally be considered unsuitable for
appointment in the Central Armed Police Forces
(CAPFs), Further, as per MHA Office Memorandum
dated 18.07.2019, issued in compliance with the
Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh vs
Union of India, the appointing authority is required to
assess the nature of acquittal and the gravity of
charges at the time of decision-making.
07. In view of the facts and policy provisions cited
above, the Committee concluded that Shri Kislay
Thakur’s acquittal cannot be treated as clean or
honourable and that his involvement in a serious
criminal case, irrespective of the compromise outcome,
renders him unsuitable for employment in CISF.
08. Based on the recommendation of the 19th SSC
(40th sitting) communicated vide CISF FHQ
Recruitment Directorate letter No. E-
32017(1)/19th(37th)SSC/Reectt.-1/2025/2462 dated
26.09.2025, and CISF Training Sector HQrs letter No.
E-37013/CISF/TS/Criminal Cases/2025-2889 dated
26.09.2025, you have been found unsuitable for
employment in CISF.
09. Accordingly, the offer of appointment issued vide
CISF Unit FUGTPP Unchahar letter No. E-
32030/FGUTPPP(U)Rectt./CT/GD/OOA/2024-207
dated 20.12.2024 is hereby withdrawn with immediate
effect. No correspondence or request for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
20:50:36
W.P.(C) 18276/2025 Page 3 of 8

reconsideration shall be entertained in this regard.”
9. Mr. Mohammad Azam Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner having been acquitted on merits and not on
compromise, the offer of appointment could not have been withdrawn by the
respondents. He has heavily relied upon the judgment of the criminal court,
which reads as under:-
“8. Now, I would like to discuss the evidence of
prosecution witness.
PW-1 Abha Devi has stated in her evidence that
occurrence took place on 19—05-2024 at 5.00 AM. At
that time she was going to prepare tea. On hulla she
came outside of her house and saw that some
altercation took place in between Ashok Kumar Thakur
and Hemant Kumar Thakur, Rajnish Thakur, Kishlay
Thakur, Lalita Devi, Bhabya Kumari. At that time
Lokesh Kumar Thakur and Ashok Kumar Thakur fallen
on the ground. She further deposed that Lokesh Kumar
Thakur sustained injury on his leg and elbow and bone
of neck of Ashok Kumar Thakur was broken. She
further deposed that today Hemant Kumar Thakur and
Kishlay Kumar Thakur are present in the court and she
also claims to identify other accused person, who are
not present in the Court. She further deposed that her
statement has not been recorded by the Darogaji. This
witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
In her cross examination she deposed that Hemant
Kumar Thakur is her Dewar.
PW-2 Ashok Kumar Thakur has stated in his
evidence that nformant of this case namely Lokesh
Kumar Thakur is his son. The occurrence took place
on 19-05-2024 at about 5.00 AM. He was at his
Darwaza. On hulla he went at the place of occurrence.
He saw that accused Rajnish Kumar Thakur, Hemant
Kumar Thakur, Kishlay Kumar Thakur and Bhawya
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
20:50:36
W.P.(C) 18276/2025 Page 4 of 8

Kumari assaulted his son. When she went there and _
tried to saved him. They also assaulted him, He was
treated in the hospital. He identifies the accused
persons. He further deposed that accused Kishlay
Kumar Thakur and Hemant Kumar Thakur are present
in the Court and he also claims to identify other
accused person, who is not present in the Court.
In his cross-examination he deposed that he fallen on
the ground due to scuffle. He has not seen the
occurrence from his own eye. He further deposed that
Hemant Kumar Thakur is his brother. He further
deposed that the case is compromised in between the
parties with his own sweet will. He does not want to
contest this case further.
PW-3 Lokesh Kumar Thakur has stated in his
examination-inchief that he is informant of this case.
The occurrence took place on 19- 05-2024 at about
5.00 AM. At that time he was at his house. In the
morning he woke up and saw that accused Hemant
Kumar Thakur, Kishlay Kumar Thakur, Rajnish Kumar
Thakur, Lalita Devi and Bhawya Kumari assaulted his
father. When he went to save his father then they also
assaulted him and he sustained injury. He was treated
in the DMCH. He further deposed that Darogaji came
there and recorded his farad beyan. He further
deposed that his beyan was recorded by Darogaji on
his instigation. He put his signature on the farad
beyan, which is marked as Ext.P-1. He further deposed
that on the said farad beyan Rajesh Kumar also put his
signature, which he identifies and the same is marked
as Ext.P.1/1. He identifies all the accused persons. He
further deposed "a that today accused Hemant Kumar
Thakur and Kishlay Kumar Thakur are present in the
Court.
In his cross-examination he deposed that he came
there where occurrence was took place. He further
deposed that he has not seen who dashed him. He
further deposed that he has compromised the case with
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
20:50:36
W.P.(C) 18276/2025 Page 5 of 8

his own sweet will. He does not want to contest this
case further,
9. After perusal of evidence of prosecution it appears
that the informant PW.-3 Lokesh Kumar Thakur,
himself has supported the prosecution case to the some
extent but in cross-examination, he has completely
demolished the case of the prosecution. He deposed
that he has not seen that who dashed him, He further
deposed that he went there when occurrence was going
on. He further deposed that he compromised the case
with his own sweet will. He does not want to contest
this case further. P.W.-2 Ashok Kumar Thakur, who is
also said to be injured of this case. He also deposed
that he has not seen the occurrence from his own eye.
He also compromised the case with his own sweet will.
He further deposed that he does not want to contest
this case further. P.W-1 Abha Devi has not supported
the prosecution and she has been declared hostile by
the prosecution. Doctor & I.O. has not been examined
by the prosecution. Considering the above facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that prosecution
has totally failed in proving his case and as such
accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and
discussions and after hearing the argument, this court
comes to the considered conclusion that the
prosecution failed in establishing the guilt of accused
persons namely Hemant Kumar Thakur, Lalita Devi,
Bhabya Kumari, Kishlay Kumar Thakur and Rajnish
Kuamr Thakur under sections 307/34, 341/34, 323/34,
325/34, 504/34 and 506/34 of IPC. The accused
persons named above are acquitted from the charge u/s
307/34, 341/34, 323/34, 325/34, 504/34 and 506/34 of
the IPC. The accused persons are on bail and therefore
the accused persons and their bailors are directed to
be released of the obligation of their respective bail
bonds so submitted by them before this court.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
20:50:36
W.P.(C) 18276/2025 Page 6 of 8

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record, it is clear that the acquittal by the Sessions Judge was also by noting
the fact that, Ashok Kumar Thakur/PW-2 has compromised the case He has
also stated that he do not want to contest the case further. What is also
important is PW-1, had not supported the case of the prosecution and was
declared hostile by the Prosecution.
11. That apart the Doctor and the IO have not been examined by the
Prosecution. It is also clear, the petitioner and others have been acquitted by
giving the benefit of doubt and also in view of compromise. It cannot be said
that the respondents are not justified by taking into consideration the
judgment of the Sessions Court to form an opinion to withdraw the offer of
appointment.
12. Though, Mr Ansari has relied upon the case of Avtar Singh v. Union
of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 , the said judgment does not help the
case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the Supreme Court has in paragraph no.
38.4.3, held that:-
“38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a
case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/
serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case
of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has
been given, the employer may consider all relevant
facts available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance of the
employee.”
13. It is not a case of clean acquittal, rather it is due to prosecution failing
to prove its case, and the witnesses not appearing in the evidence. This we
say so because an honourable acquittal may be the one where the Court
comes to a definitive conclusion at the end of the trial upon a full-fledged
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
20:50:36
W.P.(C) 18276/2025 Page 7 of 8

appreciation of evidence that the accused has not committed an offence for
which he was charged, which is in a sharp contrast from the finding that
witnesses turning hostile, compromised or non-availability of credible
evidence against the accused. Such an acquittal is an acquittal based on
technical grounds.
14. Such an acquittal or discharge will be subject to the examination of
the employer. The domain of considering the fitness and suitability of a
candidate belongs to the employer.
15. Therefore, we are of the view, that, in the facts, the respondents are
justified in withdrawing the offer of appointment. We do not find any merit
in the petition. The same is dismissed.
16. The earlier date fixed, i.e., 30.07.2026 before the learned Registrar
stands cancelled.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 10, 2026 /sr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.03.2026
20:50:36
W.P.(C) 18276/2025 Page 8 of 8