Candidature Cannot be Cancelled Solely on Matrimonial FIRs Resulting in Acquittal or Non-Chargesheeting Without Suppression

The applicant, a candidate for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police, challenged the cancellation of his candidature via an order dated 06.12.2024 and a show cause notice dated 21.03.2024.

Despite successfully clearing the recruitment process, the respondents deemed him unsuitable due to his involvement in two criminal cases arising from matrimonial discord with his estranged wife.

The first case (FIR No. 264/2020) resulted in acquittal on 26.04.2022 after the complainant and witnesses turned hostile, stating the injuries were accidental.

In the second case (FIR No. 114/2023), the applicant was not chargesheeted.

The applicant had truthfully disclosed these matters in his attestation form.

The Delhi Police Screening Committee categorized the offences as involving moral turpitude and gender violence under Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 and rejected his suitability.

1. Whether the mere registration of FIRs in matrimonial disputes, despite acquittal or non-filing of a chargesheet, constitutes a valid ground for the cancellation of candidature in a disciplined force.

2. Whether the Screening Committee acted arbitrarily by failing to distinguish between "main accused" and "collateral accused" and by ignoring the nature of the acquittal in matrimonial cases.

The court primarily applied Delhi Police Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022, which governs suitability assessments for candidates with criminal antecedents, specifically exempting collateral accused in matrimonial cases under Section 498A IPC.

It relied on the landmark principle from Avtar Singh v. Union of India, emphasizing that even if a candidate is acquitted, the employer must assess suitability fairly without being mechanical.

It further applied Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that acquittals in matrimonial disputes ending in settlement should not bar appointment.

The court applied Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police, which established that being named in an FIR (especially where the candidate is placed in Column 12/not summoned) is not an automatic impediment to public employment.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the respondents have the discretion to scrub antecedents, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not pedantically.

The court noted that the applicant had made full disclosure, negating any charge of suppression.

Regarding FIR No. 264/2020, the Tribunal found that the "hostile" nature of the witnesses did not diminish the acquittal because the substratum of the prosecution's case—that injuries were caused by assault—was directly contradicted by the victim’s testimony of an accidental fall.

Regarding FIR No. 114/2023, the Tribunal highlighted that the applicant was not even chargesheeted, yet the respondents treated the mere FIR as proof of bad character.

The Tribunal concluded that the Screening Committee failed to consider the "growing tendency" to rope in relatives in matrimonial discords, as cautioned in Vikram Ruhal, and instead focused disproportionately on the gravity of the penal sections rather than the factual outcome of the investigations.

It held that the respondents' decision suffered from non-application of mind and was contrary to established precedents regarding matrimonial disputes.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) within eight weeks.

The applicant was granted consequential benefits, including notional seniority from the date his juniors were appointed, though back wages were denied on the principle of "no work, no pay".