Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. vs Mansukha Meena

$~123
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010499992026
+ W.P.(C) 15335/2026, CM APPL. 71974/2026 & CM APPL.
71975/2026
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Sethi, SPC with
Ms. Aishwarya Chhabra and Ms. Nikita
Sethi, Advs.
versus
MANSUKHA MEENA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan and Ms.
Ridhi Dua, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 28.10.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The respondent sought appointment to the post of MTS
(Barber) (Civilian) in the Delhi Police. The recruitment took place for
the year 2017. The respondent was provisionally selected, subject to
verification of character and antecedents.
2. Prior to filing up of the attestation and verification form for the
purposes of the above recruitment on 19 March 2020, the respondent
had been implicated along with his father, with respect to a scuffle
which had taken place in his village, under Sections 353, 332 and 504
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 1 of 10

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Mahwa, District Dausa,
Rajasthan in FIR 258/2015. The proceedings which followed
culminated in the respondent’s acquittal vide judgment dated 7 June
2019 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahwa.
3. On 19 March 2020, when the respondent filled up the
attestation/verification form for recruitment to the post of MTS
(Barber)(Civilian), against the column which required him to disclose
as to whether any FIR had been registered against him or whether he
had been prosecuted, convicted or kept under detention in any
criminal case, the respondent answered in the negative. However, on
19 February 2021, the respondent submitted an affidavit to the
petitioner, disclosing the fact that FIR 258/2015 had in fact been
registered against him though he was acquitted in the proceedings
which followed thereupon.
4. Thereafter, on 31 March 2021, the Delhi Police issued a show
cause notice to the respondent, alleging concealment of facts by him
while filling up the verification and attestation form and proposing,
therefore, cancellation of his candidature. The respondent responded
to the show cause notice, which culminated in the passing of order
dated 2 November 2021, issued by the Delhi Police, cancelling the
respondent’s candidature. The relevant portion of the said order read
thus.
“2.3 The applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 06.07.2021,
explaining the circumstances of the criminal case, the nature of
acquittal, his bonafides, and the fact of voluntary disclosure. The
applicant was also afforded a personal hearing. However, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 2 of 10

respondents, vide order dated 02.11.2021, cancelled his
candidature. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this
Tribunal. Relevant part of the order dated 02.11.2021 reads as
under:-
"You were also heard in Orderly room by the undersigned
on 28.10.2021. During personal hearing, you pleaded
nothing except the version given in the reply and requested
that you may be considered for the post in question.
The plea(s) put forth by you in personal hearing as well as
in the reply have been considered in detail but not found
convincing because of the reason that in column No. 11 (A)
of the Attestation Form, you clearly mentioned that "NAHI
MERE UPAR ΚΟΙ ABHIYOG NAHI CHALAYA
GAYA". You have concealed the facts of your involvement
in the above said criminal case deliberately despite clear
warning given at the top of this form that furnishing of any
false information or concealing any facts will be treated as
disqualification.
Thus, you have concealed the facts of your involvement in
the above said criminal case in the relevant column of
Attestation Form and tried to seek appointment in Delhi
Police by adopting deceitful means with malafide intention.
Hence, the show cause notice issued to you vide this office
Letter No. XII/12/2021/2464/Rectt. Cell (Ct.)/NPL dated
31.03.2021 is hereby confirmed and your candidature for
the post of MTS (Civilian/Barber) in Delhi Police-2017 is
hereby cancelled with immediate effect.”
5. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his candidature, the
1
respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way
of OA 2919/2021. By Judgment dated 9 January 2026, the Tribunal
has allowed the OA and has set aside the cancellation of the
respondent’s candidature with consequential benefits.
6. The Delhi Police is before us, challenging the said decision.
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 3 of 10

7. We have heard Mr. Himanshu Sethi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
8. Mr. Sethi has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the
2
Supreme Court in State of UP v. Dinesh Kumar and Commissioner
3
of Police v. Mehar Singh .
9. Mr. Sethi Submits that, inasmuch as the respondent was clearly
guilty of misrepresentation and concealment of facts while filling up
his attestation/verification form, and in failing to disclose the fact that
FIR 258/2015 had been registered against him, consequent to which
he was prosecuted, even if the proceedings ultimately ended in
acquittal, the Tribunal was in error in setting aside the decision to
cancel his candidature. He has emphasized the fact that the Delhi
Police is a disciplined Force and that persons who resort to
concealment of facts cannot seek appointment thereto.
10. The issue in controversy, to our mind, is no longer res integra.
This Court has, in its recent decision in Srikanta Gorain v. Union of
4
India dealt with similar issues. The following passages from the
decision are relevant:
“3. Inasmuch as CISF Circular 08/2018 is based on the
5
judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh , it would be
appropriate to reproduce, here, para 38 of the said decision, which
contains the guidelines laid down by the Court:
“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to
explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the
2
2026 SCC Online SC 52
3
( 2013) 7 SCC 685
4
2025 SCC OnLine Del 9406
5
Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 4 of 10

aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as
to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal
case, whether before or after entering into service must be
true and there should be no suppression or false mention of
required information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the
employer may take notice of special circumstances of the
case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or
acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the
application/verification form and such fact later comes to
knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses
appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had
been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for
a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered
an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may,
in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which
is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
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.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still
has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 5 of 10

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in
character verification form regarding pendency of a
criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and
circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the
candidate subject to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with
respect to multiple pending cases such false information by
itself will assume significance and an employer may pass
appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating
services as appointment of a person against whom multiple
criminal cases were pending may not be proper.”
6
4. In its subsequent decision in Ravindra Kumar , the
Supreme Court has noted the decision in Avtar Singh and has
further clarified the legal position thus:
“22. The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh . Paras 34, 35, 36 and
38, which sets out the conclusions, are extracted
hereinbelow:
“34. No doubt about it that verification of
character and antecedents is one of the important
criteria to assess suitability and it is open to
employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent,
but ultimate action should be based upon objective
criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects .
35. Suppression of “material” information
presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters”
not every technical or trivial matter. The employer
has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions,
if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel
candidature or for terminating the services of
employee. Though a person who has suppressed the
material information cannot claim unfettered right
for appointment or continuity in service but he has a
right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of
power has to be in reasonable manner with
objectivity having due regard to facts of cases .
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to
depend upon the nature of post, higher post would
involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not
only to uniformed service. For lower posts which
6
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 5 SCC 264
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 6 of 10

are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of
suppression on suitability has to be considered by
authorities concerned considering post/nature of
duties/services and power has to be exercised on
due consideration of various aspects.
*
23. As would be clear from Avtar Singh , it has been
clearly laid down that though a person who has suppressed
the material information cannot claim unfettered right for
appointment, he or she has a right not to be dealt with
arbitrarily. The exercise of power has to be in a reasonable
manner with objectivity and having due regard to the facts.
In short, the ultimate action should be based upon objective
criteria after due consideration of all relevant aspects.
24. Avtar Singh also noticed the judgment in Commr.
7
of Police v. Sandeep Kumar . In Sandeep Kumar , this
Court set out the story of the character “Jean Valjean” in
Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, where the character
was branded as a thief for stealing a loaf of bread for his
hungry family. It also discussed the classic judgment of
8
Lord Denning in Morris v. Crown Office and concluded as
follows:
“10. … In our opinion, we should display the same
wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often
commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the
respondent did not mention that he was involved in
a criminal case under Sections 325/34IPC. Probably
he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so
he would automatically be disqualified. At any
event, it was not such a serious offence like murder,
dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view
should be taken in the matter.”
25. Thereafter, in Avtar Singh dealing with Sandeep
Kumar , this Court observed as under:
“24. … This Court has observed that suppression
related to a case when the age of Sandeep Kumar
7
(2011) 4 SCC 644
8
(1970) 2 QB 114
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 7 of 10

was about 20 years. He was young and at such age
people often commit indiscretions and such
indiscretions may often be condoned. The modern
approach should be to reform a person instead of
branding him a criminal all his life. In Morris v.
Crown Office , the observations made were that
young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no
violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were
trying to preserve the Welsh language. Though they
have done wrong but we must show mercy on them
and they were permitted to go back to their studies,
to their parents and continue the good course.”
This Court has followed, in arriving at his view, the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Commissioner
9
of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji .
11. As regards the decisions in Dinesh Kumar and Mehar Singh on
which Mr. Sethi placed reliance, they are, to our mind, clearly
distinguishable. Dinesh Kumar was not a case in which the criminal
proceedings have come to an end prior to the application filled by the
candidate. They were pending on the date when the application was
filled and the candidate had expressly stated that there were no
criminal proceedings pending on that date. That this fact is of moment
in the said decision is clear from paras 8 and 9 thereof, which read
thus.
“8. Despite this clear stipulation as extracted supra the
respondent submitted otherwise than the truth which was that there
were cases pending against him. The acquittal/dropping of
proceedings against him were subsequent developments and at the
time of filling up of the forms the investigation in the case was
active so also at the time of the affidavit. Since the disclaimer
makes it clear that concealment of information would render the
applicant ineligible/unfit for government service, what is the
9
AIR 1952 SC 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 8 of 10

clincher is the status of the cases as disclosed at the time of filing
of the forms. It cannot be disputed that at the relevant time, he
submitted incorrect and false information.
9. In urging this Court to look at circumstances in his favour
in accordance with Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ravindra
Kumar v. State of U.P., he points out inter-alia his age which is
approximately 45, the fact that he gave the affidavit prior to
initiation of cancellation of appointment proceedings, the District
Magistrate has placed on record his fitness for appointment. We are
of the considered view that none of these factors would justify
overlooking the fact that at the relevant point in time he concealed
the information. There is a maxim in law to the effect that ‘ juda lex
sed lex ’ which means the law may be harsh, but the law is law. The
factum that he said ‘ no ’ to pending proceedings against him not
once but twice, shows demonstrated mal-intent and is in direct
contravention of the disclaimer(s) given in the forms. Subsequent
acquittal or the fact that he attempted to come clean about the
suppression of facts cannot accrue to his benefit.”
12. As the Supreme Court has clearly held in that case, the clincher
was the status of the case as disclosed at the time of filling of the
forms.
13. Mehar Singh was a case in which the cancellation of
candidature was not on the ground of the concealment of information
but on the ground that the acquittal of the candidate was not
honourable. As such, this cannot constitute a useful precedent for our
purpose.
14. Mr. Sethi has sought to submit that, in the counter affidavit filed
by the petitioner before the Tribunal, it was also sought to be
contended that the acquittal of the respondent was not honourable.
That argument is not available to the petitioner in view of the
exposition of law more than almost seven decades ago, in
Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, as echoed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 9 of 10

Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election
10
Commissioner , which hold that an order has to stand or fall on the
basis of the reasons contained therein and cannot be embellished or
improved by assertions contained in affidavits filed in Courts. The
only ground on which the respondent’s candidature was cancelled was
that he had failed to disclose the fact of registration, prior in point of
time, of a criminal case against him and of his having been prosecuted
following the said FIR. It is not open, therefore, to the petitioners to
now raise the issue of whether the acquittal of the respondent was
honourable or otherwise, to justify the cancellation of his candidature.
15. We, therefore, find no error in the approach adopted by the
Tribunal.
16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine .
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 28, 2026
AR / YK
10
(1978) 1 SCC 405
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15335/2026 Page 10 of 10