Termination of a police constable was set aside where acquittal followed absence of incriminating evidence.

The applicant, Raja Ram, was provisionally selected and appointed as Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police.

An FIR under Sections 292/323/452/506/34 IPC had earlier been registered against him.

The criminal case, Criminal Case No. 37/2008, ended in his acquittal on 2 June 2008 after the material witnesses did not support the prosecution and the Trial Court recorded that there was no incriminating material against him; even his examination under Section 313 CrPC was dispensed with.

The applicant was initially reinstated in service pursuant to earlier proceedings, subject to the outcome of the pending litigation.

Subsequently, the Screening Committee treated his involvement in the alleged gender-related offence as rendering him unsuitable for service in the Delhi Police.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, relying upon the Screening Committee’s recommendation and Rule 5(i) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, terminated his services by order dated 20 January 2017.

His statutory appeal and subsequent representation were rejected by orders dated 19 June 2017 and 23 June 2017.

The applicant challenged those orders, contending that the respondents had failed to properly consider the nature of his acquittal, his satisfactory service of more than four years, and his “Very Good” or higher service record.

The respondents argued that the applicant had failed to disclose the criminal case in his recruitment and attestation forms and that suitability for a disciplined police force could be assessed independently of the criminal acquittal.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in treating the applicant as unsuitable for appointment or continuance in the Delhi Police despite his acquittal in the criminal case?

2. Whether the applicant’s alleged non-disclosure of the criminal case in his recruitment and attestation forms constituted an independent and relevant basis for terminating his services?

3. Whether the Screening Committee and the competent authority had assessed the applicant’s antecedents and acquittal objectively, or had acted arbitrarily and mechanically?

4. Whether the termination order was legally sustainable under Rule 5(i) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965?

The Tribunal applied Rule 5(i) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, concerning termination of temporary government service.

It relied on the principle in Avtar Singh v. Union of India that acquittal in a criminal case must be assessed with reference to the nature of the acquittal and the relevant recruitment rules, but that an employer may independently examine antecedents and truthful disclosure.

The Tribunal also referred to Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh and Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar/Shani Kumar concerning suitability for appointment in the police force despite criminal antecedents.

It considered Sandeep Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi, where an acquittal based on there being no evidence was distinguished from an acquittal merely granting the benefit of doubt.

The Tribunal further applied the principles that suitability decisions concerning a disciplined force receive limited judicial review, but must nevertheless be based on relevant material, objective assessment, and a rational nexus with the purpose of public employment.

The Tribunal recognised that the applicant’s acquittal did not, by itself, conclusively determine his suitability for police service.

Suitability could also depend upon the truthfulness of declarations made during recruitment, particularly in a disciplined force.

However, the criminal court had found that the material witnesses did not support the prosecution, that there was no incriminating material, and that the applicant’s examination under Section 313 CrPC was unnecessary.

The Tribunal also noted that the Screening Committee had characterised the acquittal as not “honourable” and had relied substantially on the allegations and the fact of the criminal case.

The Tribunal referred to the requirement that the Committee objectively consider the trial judgment, the nature of the evidence, the character of the allegations, and the applicant’s overall antecedents, rather than mechanically treat an acquittal following hostile witnesses as adverse.

Although the respondents relied on alleged non-disclosure and the limited scope of judicial review in police-service matters, the Tribunal ultimately found that the termination was not legally sustainable.

The applicant’s prior service of more than four years and satisfactory record were also treated as relevant circumstances.

On the final operative reasoning, the action terminating the applicant’s service was liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the termination of the applicant’s services and directed the respondents to reinstate him within 30 days of receiving the certified copy of the order, with continuity of service but without back wages.

If reinstatement was not effected within that period, the applicant was held entitled to full salary and allowances after expiry of the thirty-day period.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.