Delhi HC Upholds Restoration Of Barber Candidate’s Candidature Despite Omitted FIR, As Acquittal Preceded Attestation Form

The respondent was provisionally selected for the post of MTS (Barber) in the Delhi Police.

Before completing his attestation form on 19 March 2020, he had been acquitted, on 7 June 2019, of charges arising from FIR No. 258/2015 under Sections 353, 332 and 504 IPC.

In the form, he answered “no” to the question concerning criminal proceedings; on 19 February 2021, he submitted an affidavit disclosing the FIR and acquittal.

The Delhi Police cancelled his candidature on 2 November 2021, finding deliberate concealment.

The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the cancellation, and the Delhi Police challenged that decision by writ petition.

Under Avtar Singh v. Union of India, suppression or false information about a criminal case must be assessed with regard to the applicable rules and the circumstances of the case; the employer’s decision must be objective, reasonable and attentive to the materiality of the information, the nature of the post and the effect of the suppression on suitability.

Where proceedings concluded before the candidate completed the form, the employer may adopt an appropriate response depending on the nature of the case and its circumstances.

Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. reaffirmed that a candidate who suppresses material information has no automatic right to appointment, but is entitled not to be treated arbitrarily.

An administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons it gives and cannot be supplemented by later assertions in court, under Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner.

The Court treated the timing of the criminal case as material: unlike State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar, the respondent’s proceedings had ended in acquittal before he completed the form, rather than remaining pending when he answered the relevant question.

Applying Avtar Singh and Ravindra Kumar, the Court found no error in the Tribunal’s decision to set aside the cancellation.

It also held that the petitioner could not rely on the alleged lack of an honourable acquittal to defend the order, because the cancellation had rested only on non-disclosure and the order could not be improved through later court submissions.

The Tribunal’s order setting aside the cancellation of the respondent’s candidature, with consequential benefits, therefore remained undisturbed.