Mere naming in an FIR, without charge-sheeting, cannot alone justify denial of police appointment.

The applicant, Mohit Kumar, a recruit Constable (Driver) selected for Delhi Police-2022, was denied appointment after the respondents issued a show-cause notice dated 4 April 2024 and cancelled his candidature by order dated 6 December 2024.

The decision was based on FIR No. 0382/2019, registered under Sections 307, 364 and 395 IPC at Police Station Sungarhi, Pilibhit, alleging attempt to murder, kidnapping and dacoity.

Although the applicant was named in the FIR, the investigating agency did not charge-sheet him and placed his name in Column No. 12.

The final report was accepted by the criminal court on 11 February 2023 following settlement between the parties.

The Screening Committee nevertheless concluded that the applicant’s involvement in serious offences indicated a propensity for violence and rendered him unsuitable for appointment in the Delhi Police.

The applicant challenged the show-cause notice, Screening Committee proceedings and cancellation order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the applicant’s candidature merely because he was named in an FIR, despite his not having been charge-sheeted and having been placed in Column No. 12.

2. Whether the Screening Committee’s conclusion that the applicant had a propensity towards crime and violence was supported by relevant and independent material sufficient to render him unsuitable for appointment in the Delhi Police.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the application was maintainable.

It considered Delhi Police Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022 governing scrutiny of antecedents and suitability of candidates.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India & Ors. v. Methu Meda for the principle that acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in a disciplined force and that the employer may independently assess antecedents and suitability.

However, it distinguished that decision because the candidate there had been charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted, whereas the present applicant had not been charge-sheeted and was placed in Column No. 12.

It also relied on Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police & Ors., 302 (2023) DLT 46 (DB), for the principle that mere registration of an FIR or being named therein, without material establishing involvement, cannot by itself render a candidate unsuitable for appointment.

The Tribunal accepted that recruitment to the Delhi Police is subject to stringent standards and that the nature and gravity of alleged offences may be relevant to suitability.

Nevertheless, the Screening Committee relied primarily on the applicant’s naming in the FIR and the seriousness of the alleged offences, without identifying independent material demonstrating his actual involvement.

The investigation had not resulted in his being charge-sheeted; instead, he was placed in Column No. 12, and the final report was accepted by the criminal court.

The Tribunal held that allegations in an FIR cannot, standing alone, establish criminal involvement or a propensity towards violence.

Consequently, the Committee’s conclusion that the applicant was untrustworthy and unsuitable was unsupported by the investigation record and was therefore arbitrary.

The respondents were directed to issue an offer of appointment to the applicant for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police-2022, subject to fulfilment of all other eligibility, medical and suitability requirements.

The applicant was granted consequential benefits, including seniority on a notional basis, but no arrears of salary for the period during which he had not actually rendered service; monetary benefits were to accrue from the date of actual joining.

The exercise was directed to be completed within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, with no order as to costs.