Candidature cannot be cancelled solely on FIR allegations when the candidate was in Column 12 and proceedings were quashed.

The applicant, Ankit Singh, was a candidate for appointment as Constable (Driver), Male, in the Delhi Police.

His candidature was cancelled by order dated 06.12.2024, preceded by a show-cause notice dated 04.04.2024, on the ground of his alleged involvement in FIR No. 56/2019 dated 09.11.2019, registered under Sections 323, 34, 376(2)(n), 406, 498-A and 506 IPC.

The applicant contended that the FIR primarily concerned the husband of the complainant, who was his elder brother, and that although his name appeared in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet, no charge-sheet had been filed against him.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court subsequently quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the applicant on the basis of a matrimonial settlement, by order dated 20.05.2024.

The respondents defended the cancellation under Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, asserting that the Screening Committee could assess the applicant’s antecedents notwithstanding the quashing of the FIR.

Whether the respondents lawfully cancelled the applicant’s candidature on the ground of unsuitability after considering his alleged involvement in an FIR, despite his placement in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet?

Whether the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the applicant, together with his placement in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet, rendered the cancellation order dated 06.12.2024 and show-cause notice dated 04.04.2024 unsustainable?

Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment and consequential benefits, or only reconsideration of his candidature in accordance with law?

The Tribunal applied Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, under which the Screening Committee may examine the antecedents and suitability of a candidate for appointment in the Delhi Police, and under which mere acquittal does not automatically confer a right to appointment.

In this context, the respondents relied on the principles in Mehar Singh, Parvez Khan, Pradeep Kumar, and Union of India v. Methu Meda, concerning the distinction between criminal exoneration and suitability for appointment in a police or disciplined force.

The Tribunal also relied on Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 5718/2023, decided on 31.05.2023, which addressed the treatment of a candidate whose name appeared in Column No. 12 of a charge-sheet.

The Tribunal additionally noted the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s reliance on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya, and Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab while quashing the matrimonial FIR on the basis of compromise.

The Tribunal accepted that the Screening Committee ordinarily has authority to assess a candidate’s antecedents and suitability even after acquittal or quashing of criminal proceedings.

However, it distinguished the present case because the applicant had been placed in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet, the FIR was principally against his elder brother, and the FIR and all subsequent proceedings had been quashed qua the applicant by the High Court.

Applying the reasoning in Vikram Ruhal, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not sustain the cancellation merely by relying on the seriousness of allegations contained in an FIR in which the applicant had not been charge-sheeted and which had subsequently been quashed against him.

In these particular circumstances, the Screening Committee’s decision to cancel the candidature was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the cancellation order dated 06.12.2024 and the show-cause notice dated 04.04.2024.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s case for appointment in accordance with law within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The applicant was held entitled to consequential benefits, if any, on a notional basis, subject to such reconsideration.

The Tribunal did not directly order appointment, and there was no order as to costs.