Acquittal via compromise in criminal cases does not automatically entitle candidates to appointment in disciplined services.

The applicant applied for the post of Warder (Male) (Post Code 62/15) in the Prison Department, GNCTD, and was provisionally selected after clearing the physical and written exams.

During the verification process, it was disclosed that the applicant was involved in two FIRs involving various IPC sections, including Section 336 (endangering life), 506 (criminal intimidation), 323 (hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman); notably, a charge under Section 376 (rape) had been dropped by the trial court.

Although the Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed these FIRs in 2021 based on a compromise, the respondents cancelled the applicant’s candidature on 08.12.2021.

The applicant challenged this cancellation, arguing that the quashing of FIRs cleared his record and entitled him to appointment.

1. Whether the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature, despite the quashing of FIRs by the High Court, was arbitrary, illegal, or procedurally infirm.

2. Whether an acquittal or quashing based on a compromise amounts to an "honourable acquittal" entitling a candidate to automatic appointment in a disciplined force.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016), which held that an employer has the right to consider the nature and gravity of criminal antecedents to assess suitability, especially for sensitive posts, and is not bound by a mechanical acceptance of a closure report.

It also relied on Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh (2013) and State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan (2015), which mandate that candidates for disciplined forces must possess "impeccable character and integrity," and that a quashing based on a compromise does not equate to an honourable acquittal.

The Tribunal reasoned that the post of Warder is a sensitive position within a disciplined force, requiring high standards of discipline and security.

The court observed that the offences involving the applicant, such as criminal intimidation and insulting the modesty of a woman, could not be classified as "trivial".

Applying the Avtar Singh framework, the Tribunal noted that while the FIRs were quashed, the quashing resulted from a compromise rather than a merit-based exoneration, and thus did not confer an automatic right to appointment.

The Tribunal further noted that the Screening Committee had the lawful authority to evaluate the applicant's overall suitability based on the nature of the allegations, and found that the respondents’ decision was neither mala fide nor arbitrary given the specific requirements of the Prison Department.

It concluded that acquittal on the basis of a compromise does not constitute an "honourable acquittal" and that the employer's assessment of suitability for a disciplined force is paramount.

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the applicant.