Man declared ‘unsuitable’ for CISF gets relief after Delhi High Court orders appointment
Justices C Harishankar and Om Prakash Shukla said mere institution of a criminal case against him could not be a ground to disqualify from service and that the authorities concerned would also have to examine the nature of the charges.
3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Dec 5, 2025 08:49 PM IST
The complainant specifically deposed before the trial court that the entire episode was the result of a “misunderstanding” and that she had no grievance against the petitioner, said the high court.
Granting relief to a man who was denied appointment in CISF as a constable despite being acquitted by a trial court in a criminal case, the Delhi High Court observed that it would be a “complete travesty of justice” to disqualify him.
Justices C Harishankar and Om Prakash Shukla in an order passed on December 3 quashed and set aside the decision observing that cancellation of his candidature was “not sustainable in law”.
The court further said mere institution of a criminal case against him could not be a ground to disqualify him from service and the authorities concerned would also have to examine the nature of the charges.
Case
A case was registered against the petitioner in September 23, 2019 under sections 447 (criminal trespass) 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 354 (assault or use of criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC in Malda, West Bengal.
He applied for recruitment for the post of a general duty constable in the CISF following which, he was issued an offer of appointment on December 20, 2024.
The petitioner was acquitted by the trial court on January 29 saying that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts against him and 11 others.
On May 9, a ‘Standing Screening Committee’ declared the petitioner to be unsuitable for appointment in the force, owing to his involvement in the case and cancelled his candidature.
Story continues below this ad
He moved the high court seeking quashing of the letter of cancellation of his appointment and requested reinstatement in the CISF.
Advocate Sahil Mongia, appearing for the petitioner submitted before the court that petitioner never concealed that the case was pending against him.
The counsel said that cancellation of his candidature was illegal, unjustified, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the law as laid down by the higher courts of the country in a number of judgments.
Advocate Manish Kumar, the senior panel counsel for the respondents- the Centre and the CISF opposed the submissions.
The committee appears to have proceeded “mechanically” on the basis of the fact that certain criminal proceedings have been instituted against the petitioner, without considering the final order of acquittal.
The complainant specifically deposed before the trial court that the entire episode was the result of a “misunderstanding” and that she had no grievance against him.
The court has to examine the order “holistically” to ascertain whether the acquittal was actually honourable or on benefit of doubt.
The court is not expected to be unduly influenced by the use of the words “benefit of doubt” or “beyond reasonable doubt” by the trial court while acquitting the accused.
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
