Mere unproven criminal allegations against a deceased employee cannot bar compassionate appointment to dependents.

Subhash Chand, a Head Constable in the Delhi Police, died in harness on 16 October 2012, leaving behind his widow, two unmarried daughters and his minor son, Harsh Malik.

The Police Authorities advised his widow to apply for Harsh’s compassionate appointment after he attained majority.

After turning 18, Harsh applied for appointment, but his application and subsequent representations were rejected, principally on the ground that his father had been an accused in FIR No. 442/2007 under Sections 409, 420 and 411 of the IPC.

The criminal proceedings abated upon Subhash Chand’s death, while disciplinary proceedings against him were dropped; his suspension period was also treated as spent on duty and his name was removed from the list of police personnel involved in criminal cases.

Harsh’s mother died in November 2018, after which he again pursued the claim.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, in OA No. 2278/2019, quashed the rejection orders and directed the Police Authorities to consider Harsh’s case for compassionate appointment, subject to fulfilment of the applicable criteria, including indigence.

The Commissioner of Police challenged that decision before the High Court.

Whether the Note below Clause (4) of Standing Order 39/2018 disentitled Harsh Malik from consideration for compassionate appointment merely because his deceased father had faced criminal proceedings that had abated without any finding of guilt.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing reconsideration of Harsh Malik’s claim, subject to his satisfying the remaining eligibility conditions, including indigence.

The Court applied the compassionate-appointment eligibility framework under Clause (4) of Delhi Police Standing Order 39/2018, which permits appointment to eligible dependants of a Government servant who dies while in service, subject to the prescribed conditions.

The Note below Clause (4) excludes dependants where the Government servant was involved in criminal cases or other undesirable activities, or was dismissed from service for proven involvement in such conduct; it further requires consideration of the results of the police investigation.

The Court held that a mere allegation or pendency of criminal proceedings, without a competent finding establishing involvement or guilt, cannot by itself attract the exclusionary Note.

It further applied the principle that the alleged misconduct of a parent cannot ordinarily be visited upon the child, and construed the Note as penal in nature and limited to cases involving proven criminal complicity or dismissal on that ground.

The Court found that the Police Authorities had relied exclusively on the Note below Clause (4) to reject Harsh’s claim.

Subhash Chand’s criminal proceedings had abated because of his death and had never resulted in a finding of guilt; additionally, the disciplinary proceedings were dropped, his suspension was regularised as duty, and his name was removed from the relevant criminal-case list.

Consequently, there was no positive finding that he had been involved in a criminal case or undesirable activity.

Treating the mere existence of the FIR as conclusive proof would improperly extend the Note beyond its purpose and would effectively penalise Harsh for an unproven allegation against his father.

Since the Police Authorities did not challenge Harsh’s assertion of indigence, and the Tribunal had only ordered consideration rather than appointment, the Tribunal’s direction was legally appropriate.

It found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s judgment, affirmed the direction to reconsider Harsh’s claim subject to fulfilment of all other eligibility requirements, and dismissed the writ petition.