Acquitted Delhi Police Job Applicant Gets Fresh Suitability Review After Tribunal Faults Unreasoned “Won-Over Witness” Inference

The applicant was provisionally selected for Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police in the 2016 recruitment process.

He disclosed in his attestation form that he was involved in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act.

The trial court acquitted him on 13 March 2019, finding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; it also directed proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. against two injured witnesses who had not supported the prosecution.

A Delhi Police Screening Committee concluded that the applicant had participated in the incident and that the witnesses had been won over, and cancelled his candidature by order dated 30 July 2019.

The applicant challenged that cancellation before the Tribunal.

Acquittal in a criminal case does not, by itself, confer an automatic or indefeasible right to appointment, particularly to a disciplined police force; the competent authority may assess the allegations, investigation material and circumstances of acquittal when determining suitability.

That discretion must nevertheless be exercised fairly and reasonably, on relevant material, and through an adequately reasoned assessment; seriousness of allegations or the fact that prosecution witnesses turned hostile cannot alone establish guilt or witness-tampering.

A direction to initiate proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. is not a final determination that the allegations against the accused were false.

The Tribunal relied on the principles of contextual and non-mechanical suitability assessment discussed in Ashwani Malik v. Delhi Police & Others, O.A. No. 4542/2024, while noting the factual distinction in that case.

The Committee was entitled to consider the allegations, injury evidence and statements recorded during investigation.

However, it went further and inferred that the applicant had actively participated in the incident and had managed to win over witnesses, without adequately explaining how the investigation material was weighed against the acquittal judgment and the Section 344 Cr.P.C. direction.

Neither the witnesses’ failure to support the prosecution nor the Section 344 direction, considered alone, resolved the applicant’s suitability.

Because the cancellation order did not demonstrate a sufficiently reasoned assessment of these circumstances, the Committee’s discretion had not been exercised in the manner required by law.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s case in light of the trial judgment, the Section 344 Cr.P.C. direction, the record and the stated principles, and to issue a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The Tribunal did not declare the applicant automatically entitled to appointment; if found otherwise eligible and suitable, his candidature was to be considered under the applicable rules and instructions.