Complete acquittal for failure to establish identity constitutes honourable acquittal for police recruitment.

The respondent applied for selection to the post of Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police.

His candidature was cancelled because he had previously been involved in FIR No. 227/2020 registered at Police Station Pataudi, Gurugram, Haryana.

He had disclosed both the registration of the FIR and his subsequent acquittal in his application; therefore, the case did not involve suppression or non-disclosure of material information.

The Delhi Police nevertheless cancelled his candidature on the ground that he had not been “honourably acquitted.”

The Central Administrative Tribunal, in OA No. 4329/2024, set aside the cancellation and granted consequential relief.

The Delhi Police challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court.

Whether the Delhi Police could cancel the respondent’s candidature solely because he had previously been involved in a criminal case, despite his disclosure of the case and his acquittal therein?

Whether the respondent’s acquittal, based on the prosecution’s failure to establish his identity or involvement beyond reasonable doubt, constituted an “honourable acquittal”?

The Court applied the principle that an acquittal must be assessed by examining the substance and findings of the criminal court’s judgment rather than merely the fact that prosecution witnesses were declared hostile.

It further applied the criminal-law standard that the prosecution must prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where the prosecution fails to establish that the accused committed the alleged acts, the accused is entitled to complete acquittal.

The Court also recognised that cancellation of candidature cannot be sustained solely on the basis of prior criminal involvement where the candidate disclosed the proceedings and was acquitted, particularly where the acquittal reflected a finding that the prosecution failed to establish the candidate’s identity or involvement.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The criminal court’s judgment recorded that the complainant and other material prosecution witnesses did not identify the respondent as one of the assailants and, despite being declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, did not provide incriminating evidence against him.

The criminal court accordingly found that the prosecution had failed to establish the respondent’s identity or prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him.

The High Court held that this was not a case where the respondent had merely obtained acquittal on a technical ground or by an unexplained benefit of doubt; rather, the record contained a clear finding that there was nothing to indicate that he had committed the alleged assault.

Since the respondent had also disclosed the FIR and the acquittal, the Delhi Police could not treat his prior criminal involvement, by itself, as sufficient justification for cancelling his candidature.

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.

His candidature could not consequently be cancelled solely on the basis of his prior involvement in the criminal case, particularly when he had disclosed the case and the acquittal.

The writ petition was dismissed in limine, and the Tribunal’s order setting aside the cancellation of candidature with consequential relief was left undisturbed.