Ankit Singh vs UNION OF INDIA

1

Item No.42 (C-4)

OA 272/20
025
C
CENTRAL ADMINISTRAT
TIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: N
NEW DELHI

OA NO.272/202
25

st
Delhi, this the 21 day of
New

HON’BLE M
HON’BLE D

Ankit Singh
S/o Sh. Ma
R/o H.No.2
Ekta Vihar,
Delhi.
f August, 2026.
MR. MANISH GARG, MEM
DR. ANAND S KHATI, ME
MBER (J)
EMBER (A)
h, aged about 28 years
havir Singh
9a, Baba Haridas Nagar
Nazafgarh

…Applicant

Ms. Meenu Sharma)
(By advoca

te: Mr. Ajesh Luthra with
Versus

1. Comm
Delhi P
(New
Behind
Police
New D

2. Deput
(Recru
New P
Kingsw

missioner of Police
Police Hdqrs.
Building)
d Parliament Street
Station,
Delhi-110001.
y Commissioner of Police
uitment Cell)
Police Lines
way Camp, Delhi-110052.

…Respondents

)
(By advoca
te: Mr. Shailender Tiwari)

JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:52:32+05'30'

2

Item No.42 (C-4)

OA 272/20
025
ORDER (ORAL)
)

HON’BLE M

MR. MANISH GARG, MEM
MBER (J):
In the
e instant OA, the applican
nt seeks the following
reliefs:-
“(a) q
uash and set aside impugned
Annexure A/1) alongwith impu
d order dated 06.12.2024
(A
d

(b) d
a
M

ugned show cause notice
A/2) and;
ated 04.04.2024 (Annexure A
irect the respondents to
ppoint the applicant to the po
Male and;
forthwith consider and
ost of Constable (Driver)
(c) a
a

(d) A

ccord of all consequential ben
nd seniority benefits;
nefits including monetary
Award costs of the proceedings
s; and
(e ) P
Pass any order/relief/directi
Tribunal may deem fit and pr
on(s) as this Hon’ble
roper in the interests of
nt.”
T
ju

2. Highli
ustice in favour of the applican
ighting the facts of the c
case, learned counsel
for the ap
plicant submits that the
e candidature of the
applicant h
has been rejected by th
he respondents vide
order dated
d 06.12.2024 on the grou
nd of his involvement
in FIR No.5
56/2019 dated 09.11.2019
9. However, he draws
attention t
to the fact that the cha
arge-sheet was filed
against the
e brother of the applic
cant under Sections
323/34/376
6(2)(n)/406/498-A/506
IPC, whereas the
applicant w
was placed in Column N
No.12 of the charge-
sheet. He f
further submits that the
FIR was against the
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:52:32+05'30'

3

Item No.42 (C-4)

husband of
OA 272/20
025
f the complainant, who is
s the elder brother of
the applican
nt.

3. Learne
ed counsel for the appli
cant further submits
that the ma
atter, being a matrimonia
l dispute, has already
been settle
d between the parties be
fore the Hon’ble High
Court of P
Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh. In this
regard, he
draws attention to the ord
der dated 20.05.2024
passed by t
the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh
h. Paragraph 4 of the sai
d judgment reads as
under:-
“4. In
d
o
4
P
S
1
S
th
0
3
P
s
q

4. Learne
n view of the compromise a
and the ratio of law laid
own by Hon’ble Supreme Cou
thers vs State of Punjab and
466, Ramgopal and another
Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine S
Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya
urt in Narinder Singh and
d another, (2014) 6 SCC
r Vs. State of Madhya
SC 834 and Shakuntala
(Mrs.) and others (1980)
SCC 63 and Full Bench of
Singh Vs. State of Punjab 20
this Court in Kulwinder
07 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052,
and FIR No.56 dated
er Sections
506 of IPC registered at
r, District Hisar and all
his petition is allowed a
09.11.2019 unde
323/34/376(2)(n)/406/498-A/5
Police Station Women, Hisar
ubsequent proceedings arisin
ng out of the same are
uashed, qua the petitioner.”
ed counsel for the ap
pplicant also draws
attention t
to the decision render
red by the Hon’ble
Supreme C
Court in Pramod Singh
Kirar Vs. State of
Madhya P
Pradesh and others , (
(2023) 1 SCC 423.
Paragraph
10 of the said judgment re
eads as under:-
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:52:32+05'30'

4

Item No.42 (C-4)

OA 272/20
025
“10. F
From the judgment and orde
r of acquittal passed by
there was a matrimonial
lement and the original
th
d
c
p
s
a
th
e
p
a
o

5. Per co
he trial court it appear that t
ispute which ended in settl
omplainant did not suppo
prosecution and was declar
ort the case of the
red hostile in view of
ettlement out of the court an
nd the other prosecution
nd was declared hostile in v
he court and the other
iew of settlement out of
prosecution witness(s)
d not corroborate the
xamined in the case did
prosecution story. Thus, it
can be seen that the
rosecution for the other
ppellant did not face the pr
ffences of IPC.”
ontra, learned counsel
for the respondents
relying upo
on the averments conta
ined in the Counter
Affidavit s
submits that the acti
ion taken by the
respondent
ts is justified, as the suita
ability of the applicant
has to be a
assessed by the Screening
g Committee in terms
of Standing
g Order No. HRD/12/2022
2. He draws attention
to Page 1
8 of the Counter Affida
avit, which reads as
under:-
“The S
candida
by the
register
candida
that the
brother
compro
compla
as evid
conside
Hon'ble
candida
tendenc
nature
appoint
force li
convinc
Screening Committee obser
ate was placed in column No.
rved tha Although the
12 and FIR was quashed
d Haryana, the case was
Hon'ble Court of Punjab and
red against the accused
ate for dowry demand. The c
persons including the
complainant also alleged
and threatened to kill her
e candidate raped her twice a
r if she reported the same. T
omise but the serious allegati
The FIR was quashed on
ions were leveled by the
rsons including candidate
of candidate cannot be
inant against the accused per
dent from FIR. Acquittal o
ered as "Honorable Acquittal i
e Court in UOI vs. Methu Meda
in view of observation of
a. His involvement of the
ase shows premeditated
ut fear of law, bully type
ate in the heinous nature ca
cy to indulge in crime withou
and such type of attitude re
tment in a law enforcing age
nders him unsuitable for
ency and in a disciplined
ke Delhi Police. His reply to s
cing. In view of above, obser
show cause notice is not
rvation of Apex Court in
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:52:32+05'30'

5

Item No.42 (C-4)

OA 272/20
025
various
HRD/12
candida
case w
applica
against
suitabil
and res
to dilu
Commit
from th
Mehar
that me
entitle
to the
opportu
he/she
actions
unfound
actions
the am
applica

6. Learne
s cases and provisions of
f Standing Order No.
mittee did not find the
2/2022, the Screening Comm
ate suitable for appointment
was "Not Recommended". The
in Delhi Police and his
e remaining plea of the
o charge-sheet was filed
nt that he is innocent and no
t him and his case do not
call for assessment of
ved in the alleged offence
ity and he is not found involv
spondents overlook material fa
acts is not potent enough
y concluded Screening
Order No. HRD/12/2022,
ute the decision of duly
ttee. According to Standing O
he observations of the Hon'ble
e Apex Court in cases of
adeep Kumar, it is clear
se does not automatically
Singh, Parvez Khan and Pra
ere acquittal in a criminal cas
the provisionally selected ca
ndidate for appointment
mittee will still have the
post. The Screening Comm
unity to consider antecedent
s and examine whether
o the post in Delhi Police.
is suitable for appointment to
of the respondents are neithe
ded as alleged by the applica
er illegal, nor arbitrary or
ant in these para(s). The
of the respondents are legal,
bit of rules and regulations. H
nt are denied.”
valid and justified within
Hence, the plea(s) of the
ed counsel further submit
ts that the allegations
levelled aga
ainst the applicant are se
erious in nature and,
therefore,
the decision taken
by the Screening
Committee,
, after considering the
antecedents of the
applicant, c
cannot be said to be arbitr
rary or illegal.

7. We ha
ave heard learned counse
el for the parties and
perused the
e records of the case.

8. The is
ssue which arises for con
sideration is whether
the candid
dature of the applicant
t has rightly been
cancelled o
on the ground of unsuit
ability, after he was
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:52:32+05'30'

6

Item No.42 (C-4)

assessed b
OA 272/20
025
by the Screening Com
mittee in terms of
Standing O
rder No. HRD/12/2022.

9. Admitt
tedly, there is no disput
te that the applicant
was placed
d in Column No.12 of the
e Charge-Sheet. It is
also not in
n dispute that the FIR
in question and all
subsequent
t proceedings arising the
erefrom have already
been quas
hed qua the applicant b
by the Hon’ble High
Court of P
Punjab & Haryana at Ch
handigarh vide order
dated 20.05
5.2024.

10. We ar
re also guided by the deci
ision rendered by the
Hon’ble Hig
gh Court of Delhi in Vikr
am Ruhal Vs. Delhi
Police &
Ors. , W.P.(C) No. 571
8/2023, decided on
31.05.2023
3 wherein a similar issue
e regarding the name
of a candid
ate appearing in Column
No.12 of the Charge-
Sheet was
considered. The said de
ecision is relevant for
examining t
the issue arising in the pr
esent case.

11. Having
g regard to the af
foresaid facts and
circumstanc
ces, particularly the fact t
that the applicant was
placed in C
olumn No.12 of the Charg
ge-Sheet and that the
FIR as wel
l as all subsequent proce
eedings arising there
from have
already been quashed q
ua the applicant, we
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:52:32+05'30'

7

Item No.42 (C-4)

are of the
OA 272/20
025
e considered view that
the decision of the
respondent
ts cancelling the ca
andidature of the
applicant, i
n the facts and circumst
ances of the present
case, canno
ot be sustained.

12. In vie
w of above, the O.A. is
allowed. Impugned
order date
d 06.12.2024 and show
w cause notice dated
04.04.2024
4 are quashed and set as
side. The respondents
are directe
ed to consider the case
of the applicant in
accordance
with law, within a period
d of two months from
the date o
of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
Needless to
o say, the applicant sha
all be entitled to all
consequent
tial benefits, if any, on
n notional basis, in
accordance
with law.

13. Pendin
ng MAs, if any, shall stan
nd disposed of. There
shall be no
order as to costs.

(Dr. Anand
Member

/jk/

d S Khati)
(A)
(Manish Garg)
Member (J)
JUGAL KISHORE
JUGAL KISHORE
2026.09.03 16:52:32+05'30'