Mohit Kumar vs DELHI POLICE

1
Item No.139/ C-IV O.A. No.439/2025


Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi

O.A. No.439/2025

th
This the 20 day of August, 2026

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

Mohit Kumar Roll No. 3005000237 Recruit CT. (Dvr.)
in Delhi Police, Aged about 29 Years S/o Sh.
Devendra Kumar R/o VPO : Katiya, Distt : Muzaffar
Nagar, UP-251315


…Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)


Versus

1. Delhi police Through Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-11 0001.

2. Chairman, Screening Committee Through
Commissioner of Police, PHQ, Jai Singh Road, New
Delhi-11 0001.

3. DCP (Recruitment) NPL, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-
110009

…Respondents

(By Advocate : Ms. Sangita Singh)

SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:56+05'30'

2
Item No.139/ C-IV O.A. No.439/2025



ORDER (ORAL)

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

In the present Original Application (O.A.) filed
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, the applicants seek the following reliefs:-.
“1. To call for the records of the case and quash/set
aside the impugned SCN dt.4.4.2024 & Order
dt.6.12.2024 and proceedings of Screening Committee
on the basis of which impugned orders were passed
and direct the respondents to issue letter of
appointment to the applicant for the post of CT. (Dvr.)
with all consequential benefits including
Seniority/promotion and arrears of pay since the
applicant is still unemployed.
2. To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass
any order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of
the case.”
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant had been denied appointment by the
respondents on the ground of his alleged involvement
in a criminal case vide impugned order dated
06.12.2024. The relevant portion of the impugned
order reads as under:
“In pursuance of the instructions contained in
HRD/12/2022, your case along-with reply to SCN as
well as documents submitted by you in your claim
was placed before the Screening Committee. The
Screening Committee examined your case at length
and observed that case FIR No. 0382/2019 dated
13.09.2019 U/S 307/364/395 IPC PS Sungarhi,
Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh was registered on the
complaint of Shri Ram Autar @ Rishabh alleging
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:56+05'30'

3
Item No.139/ C-IV O.A. No.439/2025


therein that on 12.09.2019 he went to New Mandi for
buying vegetables. At about 08.30 PM, approx. 15
persons who were under the influence of liquor met
him at Ramlila Gate and asked him to give money
and started beating on his refusal. They forcibly
snatched Rs. 22,000/-, Gold Chain and Watch. Some
of them were calling name of Mohit (candidate) and
saying to put him in the car. After that all these
persons kidnapped him in the car near Hospital Gate,
after de-boarding from the car and they again beat
him severely with Iron Rod, Belt and Danda with the
intention to kill him. They again beaten him behind
the FCI Godown and tried to kill him by drowning in
the Pond. These persons were calling name of Mohit
Gujar s/o Devendra(candidate), Punit Gangawar and
Dodo. Meanwhile police reached at the spot but all
these persons ran away, however, one Mohit
Gujar(candidate) was apprehended by the Police at
the spot. Mohit Gujar(candidate) was telling himself
as Gunner of DM and one associate Amit Saxena was
Pushkar of SDM. After investigation Other accused
persons were charge sheeted U/S 147/323/342 IPC
and charge sheet was filed on 17.11.2020 and
candidate was placed in Column No. 12. The Hon'ble
Court vide its Order dated 11.02.2023 has accepted
the Final Report submitted by the IO on the grounds of
settlement amicably between both the parties.
The Screening Committee observed that
although you were placed in Column No. 12 and all
other accused acquitted as per the Final Report
submitted by the IO on the grounds of settlement
between the parties, you were clearly named in the
FIR. You and other co-accused were involved in the
heinous nature offences like attempt to murder,
kidnapping and dacoity as evident from the FIR. The
involvement of yours in stringent sections of laws
shows your propensity to indulge in crime and
propensity to violence without fear of law and the
person is also not trust-worthy. Acquitted of the yours
can't be considered as "Honorable Acquitted" in view
of observation of Court in UOI Vs Methu Meda. It
would not be in public interest to appoint such person
in a law enforcing agency and in a disciplined force
like Delhi Police. His reply to show cause notice is not
convincing.
In view of above, observation of Apex Court in
various cases and provisions of Standing Order,
Screening Committee did not find you suitable for
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:56+05'30'

4
Item No.139/ C-IV O.A. No.439/2025


appointment in Delhi Police and your case is "Not
Recommended".
In view of the facts & circumstance mentioned
above, the show cause notice issued vide No.
XII/120/2024/32894/Rectt.Cell(R-VI)/Dvr./NPL
dated 04/04/2024 is hereby confirmed. As such,
your candidature for recruitment to the post of Const.
(Dvr.) in Delhi Police-2022 is hereby cancelled with
immediate effect. No further correspondence, in this
regard, will be entertained.
This issues with the approval of CP/Delhi.”
2.1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that,
after investigation, the Delhi Police found no material
against the applicant warranting his prosecution and
his name was placed in Column No. 12 of the
chargesheet/final report. It is further submitted that
the other accused persons against whom the
chargesheet was filed have also been acquitted.
2.2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
that mere naming of the applicant in the FIR,
particularly when the investigation did not result in
his being charge-sheeted, cannot by itself constitute a
sufficient ground to deny appointment. He draws our
attention to the relevant Standing Order of the Delhi
Police as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police &
Ors . , reported in 302 (2023) Delhi Law Times 46 (DB).
The relevant paragraphs thereof read as under:
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:56+05'30'

5
Item No.139/ C-IV O.A. No.439/2025


“18. In the facts and circumstances, the Competent
Authority as well as the learned Tribunal, failed to
consider the facts and circumstances in a correct
perspective and were merely swept by the factum of
the petitioner being named in the FIR. There is nothing
else on record to reflect that the antecedents of the
petitioner disqualify him in any manner for
appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe) in Delhi
Police. It is difficult to presume that the petitioner
would be a threat to the discipline of Police Force
merely on account of registration of the aforesaid FIR
wherein he has even not been summoned.
19. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to agree
with the reasons accorded by the learned Tribunal
declining the relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, we
set aside the order dated September 11, 2020 and
December 02, 2020 passed by the respondents along
with the impugned order dated February 20, 2023
passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 45/2021 deferring
the consideration of appointment of petitioner till
disposal of FIR No. 234/2018.
Respondents are hereby directed to appoint the
petitioner to the concerned post, subject to his
satisfying all other conditions within a period of four
weeks from the passing of this order. Petitioner shall
be further entitled to all consequential benefits
including seniority on notional basis, but the payment
of salary shall be due from the date of joining.
20. Petition accordingly stands allowed. Considering
the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the case of the applicant was duly
considered by the Screening Committee in terms of
the applicable Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 and
that, upon consideration of the material available on
record, the Screening Committee found the applicant
unsuitable for appointment. It is submitted that the
allegations in the FIR pertained to serious offences
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:56+05'30'

6
Item No.139/ C-IV O.A. No.439/2025


punishable under Sections 307, 364 and 395 IPC and,
therefore, the nature and gravity of the allegations
were relevant considerations for determining the
suitability of the applicant for appointment in a
disciplined force such as the Delhi Police.
3.1. In support of her contention, learned counsel for
the respondents places reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors.
v. Methu Meda , contending that an acquittal cannot,
in every case, be treated as an honourable acquittal
and that the employer is entitled to assess the
antecedents and overall suitability of a candidate for
appointment in a disciplined force.
4. We have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4.1 The issue is whether the respondents were
justified in cancelling the applicant’s candidature
merely because he was named in an FIR, despite not
being charge-sheeted and being placed in Column No.
12.
4.2 Although stringent standards apply to
recruitment in the Delhi Police, the decision regarding
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:56+05'30'

7
Item No.139/ C-IV O.A. No.439/2025


suitability must be based on relevant material and
cannot be arbitrary.
4.3 In Union of India & Ors. v. Methu Meda , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that acquittal does not
automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in a
disciplined force. However, the said decision
concerned a candidate who had been charge-sheeted,
tried and acquitted. The applicant’s case is different,
as he was not charge-sheeted and was placed in
Column No. 12.
4.4 The investigation did not disclose sufficient
material against the applicant. The final report was
accepted by the criminal court on 11.02.2023. Thus,
the allegations in the FIR cannot, by themselves, be
treated as proof of his involvement or propensity
towards crime and violence.
4.5 The Screening Committee relied mainly on the
applicant’s name in the FIR and the seriousness of the
alleged offences, without referring to any independent
material showing his involvement. The subsequent
course of the criminal proceedings was also not
properly considered.
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:56+05'30'

8
Item No.139/ C-IV O.A. No.439/2025


4.6 The decision in Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police &
Ors. supports the view that mere registration of an
FIR, without material establishing involvement,
cannot by itself render a candidate unsuitable for
appointment.
4.7 In the circumstances, the conclusion that the
applicant’s alleged involvement demonstrated a
propensity towards crime and violence is unsupported
by the investigation record. The impugned order dated
06.12.2024, cancelling his candidature solely on the
basis of FIR No. 0382/2019, therefore cannot be
sustained.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
06.12.2024 is set aside. The respondents are directed
to issue an offer of appointment to the applicant for
the post of Constable (Dvr.) in Delhi Police-2022,
subject to his satisfying all other prescribed eligibility
and suitability conditions, including the requisite
medical and other requirements. He shall be entitled
to consequential benefits, including seniority on
notional basis, in accordance with law. However, he
shall not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period
during which he has not actually rendered service.
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:56+05'30'

9
Item No.139/ C-IV O.A. No.439/2025


His pay and other monetary benefits shall be
regulated from the date of his actual joining.
5.1 The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by
the respondents within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. The O.A. is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid
terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.

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

/ sm /
SNEHA 2026.09.01
MEENA 17:25:56+05'30'