Acquittal based on failed prosecution necessitates appointment unless non-honourable acquittal is established.

The Applicant, Deepak, applied for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) Male & Female in Delhi Police Examination, 2022, under the EWS category.

He was declared qualified for further stages after the computer-based examination.

During antecedent verification, Deepak disclosed his involvement in FIR No. 293/2021, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 427, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, arising from a neighborhood altercation.

The Applicant was subsequently acquitted by the competent criminal court vide judgment dated 08.11.2024, with the trial court observing that the prosecution failed to establish link evidence and prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Despite the acquittal, the Screening Committee, constituted under Standing Order HRD/12/2022 of Delhi Police, rejected the Applicant's candidature, communicated vide order dated 20.05.2025.

The Committee observed that Deepak was a main accused, involved in serious offences, and that his acquittal was not "honourable" but due to a compromise, reflecting violent behavior and unsuitability for Delhi Police.

1. Whether the discretion exercised by the Screening Committee, in declaring the applicant "Not Recommended", was based on an objective assessment of material on record or suffered from non-application of mind and mechanical reliance upon the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-sheet.

The Tribunal applied the principle that while a Screening Committee is empowered to assess suitability independently and is not strictly bound by criminal court findings, its discretion must be exercised objectively, reasonably, and with due consideration of the entire material on record, and it cannot sit in appeal over the criminal court's judgment or ignore its reasoning.

The court referenced the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in *Raj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan* which clarified that the nature of acquittal and the reasoning of the criminal court are relevant factors for assessing suitability, distinguishing between an acquittal after full appreciation of evidence (where prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt) and a technical or compromise-based acquittal.

The Tribunal also considered *Union of India v. Methu Meda* regarding the concept of "honourable acquittal", noting that an acquittal giving benefit of doubt might not automatically lead to reinstatement.

Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi's decision in *Commissioner of Police v. Vidur*, dated 12.12.2025, was cited, which held that cancellation of candidature despite clean acquittal, without adverse material, fails the test of reasonableness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 19, was the basis for the Applicant's Original Application.

The court noted that the Screening Committee primarily relied on the FIR and charge-sheet allegations, failing to adequately consider the criminal court's judgment.

The criminal court had clearly stated that the prosecution "failed to establish the link evidence against the accused persons" and "failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt," upholding the principle that grave suspicion cannot substitute proof.

The Committee's conclusion that the acquittal was "not honourable" was a mechanical application of *Methu Meda* without considering the distinguishing factual features of the present case, where the acquittal was based on the prosecution's failure to prove guilt rather than a mere technicality or compromise.

The court emphasized that an acquittal based on the prosecution's failure to prove its case after full appreciation of evidence stands on a different footing than a technical or compromise-based acquittal and cannot be ignored without due application of mind.

Relying on *Commissioner of Police v. Vidur*, the Tribunal affirmed that cancellation of candidature despite a clean acquittal, in the absence of adverse material, is arbitrary, mechanical, and legally flawed, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The fact that witnesses were declared hostile could not automatically lead to an adverse inference, especially when the trial court found the prosecution failed to establish its case.

The court concluded that the impugned decision reflected a mechanical exercise of discretion, lacking proper application of mind to the criminal court's findings.

The respondents were directed to issue an offer of appointment to the Applicant within three months, subject to his fulfilling all other eligibility conditions.

The Applicant would not be entitled to back wages but would receive notional consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

The pending MAs were also disposed of.