Shaib Mohammad Lone vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 16 October 2026

1. State of Jammu & Kashmir, through Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.

2. Director General of Police, J&K, at Srinagar.

3. Additional Director General of Police, Armed J&K, at Srinagar.

4. Commandant, 16th IRP Battalion, Parrinhaspora, Pattan, Baramulla. ….Respondents By Advocate :- Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, DAG

O R D E R (FINAL) JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. The present Transfer Application has arisen out of SWP No. 2083/2015, originally instituted by the applicant before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at

Location:

Srinagar, seeking relief in connection with his claim for compassionate appointment in the Police Department pursuant to Government Order No. 507-Home (SRO-43) of 2014 dated 30.10.2014. The controversy essentially concerns the applicant’s claim for completion of the appointment process and issuance of a formal appointment order, which, according to him, remained pending despite the sanction accorded in his favour and the subsequent administrative proceedings undertaken by the concerned authorities.

02. The brief facts, as emerging from the pleadings and the material placed on record, are that the applicant’s father, Late Sona-Ullah Lone, PID No. EXK-831542, resident of Trehgam, Tehsil and District Kupwara, was serving in the Executive Police and died in harness at SKIMS, Soura, on 23.06.2013. Following his death, the applicant sought compassionate appointment under the applicable scheme.

03. The Government, vide Order No. 507-Home (SRO-43) of 2014 dated 30.10.2014, sanctioned the applicant’s

Location:

temporary appointment under SRO-43 of 1994, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions and completion of the requisite formalities. These included production of the requisite academic qualification certificate, age and health certificate, State Subject certificate, certificates from the General Manager, District Industries Centre concerned, and the Deputy Director, Employment, besides verification of character and antecedents and compliance with other departmental and legal requirements.

04. Pursuant thereto, the Police Headquarters, J&K, vide communication No. Pers-A-38/2009-2411-16 dated 14.01.2015, directed the Additional Director General of Police, Armed, to take steps for issuance of a formal appointment order in favour of the applicant as Follower in the Armed Police, subject to completion of the requisite formalities. Thereafter, APHQ Order No. 399 of 2015 dated 28.05.2015 was issued, approving the applicant’s temporary appointment under SRO-43 and adjusting him in the 16th IRP Battalion. The administrative record

Location:

indicates that the applicant had been found fit in the trade test and that issuance of a formal appointment order as Washerman was contemplated subject to completion of the prescribed formalities.

05. During verification of the applicant’s character and antecedents, the matter was referred to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). The respondents state that the CID, vide communication No. CID/MR/SRO- 43/2015/307 dated 07.08.2015, reported the applicant’s alleged involvement in FIR No. 33/2012 registered at Police Station Trehgam, Kupwara, under Sections 147, 447 and 379 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The respondents have also referred to FIR No. 56/2012, registered at the same police station, in which the applicant and his father were allegedly involved. The respondents relied upon the aforesaid criminal cases while considering the applicant’s suitability for appointment and withholding issuance of the formal appointment order pending verification of his character and antecedents.

Location:

06. The respondents’ case is that, in view of the adverse report received during verification, the formal appointment order could not be issued. The matter was taken up with the Additional Director General of Police, Armed, vide communication No. Estt/IRP 16th/15/10532 dated 18.08.2015, seeking further directions. The status report placed on record, however, does not disclose that the applicant’s claim was thereafter finally determined by a reasoned order addressing the effect of the pending criminal proceedings and the conditions governing the compassionate appointment sanctioned in his favor.

07. The matter initially came before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in SWP No. 2083/2015, titled Shaib Mohammad Lone v. State and Others. Vide order dated 23.09.2015, the Hon’ble Single Judge considered the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment as Washerman in the Police Department pursuant to Government Order No. 507-Home (SRO-43) of 2014 dated 30.10.2014. The Hon’ble Court took note of

Location:

the sanction accorded by the Government and the subsequent administrative proceedings, including communication dated 14.01.2015 and APHQ Order No. 399 of 2015 dated 28.05.2015, whereby the applicant had been found fit in the trade test and the concerned authorities had been asked to issue a formal appointment order upon completion of the requisite formalities. Observing that the applicant had been made to suffer despite the sanction accorded in his favour, the Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to take the applicant into service in terms of the aforesaid Government Order within two weeks from the date of service of a copy of the judgment, with a direction to report compliance to the Registry.

08. The aforesaid judgment dated 23.09.2015 was challenged by the State in LPASW No. 205/2016. Vide judgment dated 17.11.2022, the Hon’ble Division Bench noted that the principal grievance of the appellants was that the writ petition had been decided without putting the appellants to

Location:

notice and without affording them an opportunity to meet the case set up by the writ petitioner. The matter was accordingly remitted to the writ court for fresh consideration after providing the parties an opportunity of hearing. Thus, the direction issued by the Hon’ble Single Judge for taking the applicant into service did not remain operative following the appellate judgment, and the applicant’s claim was required to be reconsidered in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

09. Subsequently, vide order dated 03.06.2026 passed in the proceedings arising out of SWP No. 2083/2015 and LPA No. 107/2026, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the service dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed that the transferred matter be considered by this Tribunal, preferably within the stipulated period. The present Transfer Application is, therefore, being adjudicated in the light of the pleadings, the respondents’ status report, the documents on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the

Location:

parties.

10. The applicant’s case, in substance, is that the Government had sanctioned his compassionate appointment; the competent police authorities had undertaken further administrative proceedings; he had been found fit in the trade test; and the issuance of a formal appointment order was contemplated subject to completion of the prescribed formalities. According to the applicant, the matter remained unresolved on account of the criminal cases referred to in the verification report, and the respondents failed to take a final, reasoned decision on his claim.

11. The applicant has relied upon the judgments in Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, decided on 17.03.2011; Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Arsam Imtyaz Malik, WP(C) No. 289/2025, decided on 17.02.2025; Manish Kumar v. Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors., O.A. No. 475/2019, decided on 14.01.2025; and Rahul Bansal v. The Commissioner of

Location:

Police & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 9485/2020, decided on 10.03.2026. The aforesaid judgments are considered hereinafter in the context of the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment and the assessment of suitability in light of criminal antecedents.

12. Per contra, the respondents, in their status report, have opposed the claim. Their preliminary objection is that the Transfer Application is misconceived and that the applicant has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment merely because a sanction was issued in his favor. It is submitted that Government Order No. 507- Home (SRO-43) of 2014 dated 30.10.2014 was expressly conditional and that the applicant was required to satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions, including verification of character and antecedents, before a formal appointment order could be issued.

13. The respondents further submit that the compassionate appointment sanction did not dispense with the requirement of verification or compel the authorities to

Location:

appoint a candidate irrespective of the outcome of such verification. According to them, the adverse CID report concerning FIR Nos. 33/2012 and 56/2012 raised questions regarding the applicant’s suitability, which the competent authorities were required to consider before proceeding with the appointment. The respondents maintain that the pendency of the criminal proceedings and the nature of the allegations were relevant considerations in determining whether the applicant was suitable for appointment in the Police Department.

14. It is also the respondents’ case that employment in the Police Department carries responsibilities distinct from those attached to ordinary civil employment and that a candidate seeking entry into a disciplined force is required to satisfy the prescribed standards of character and suitability. They contend that the authorities were entitled to examine the material disclosed during verification and that the applicant could not claim appointment as a matter of right without completion of the applicable formalities.

Location:

15. The respondents have further stated that the competent authorities acted upon the CID verification report and took up the matter with the Additional Director General of Police, Armed, for appropriate directions. On this basis, they deny that the applicant’s claim was deliberately or arbitrarily withheld. They submit that the relief sought by the applicant, if granted without consideration of the pending criminal proceedings and the applicable appointment conditions, would amount to directing appointment without completion of the prescribed process.

16. The status report specifically refers to FIR No. 33/2012 registered at Police Station Trehgam under Sections 147, 447 and 379 RPC. These provisions concern rioting, criminal trespass and theft, respectively. The allegations, as reflected in the record, are therefore allegations of participation in rioting, unlawful entry upon property with the requisite criminal intent, and theft. The status report does not establish that the applicant has been convicted of

Location:

these offences; it records that the criminal proceedings were pending before the competent criminal court.

17. As regards FIR No. 56/2012, registered at Police Station Trehgam, the status report refers to offences under Sections 307 RPC (attempt to murder), 148 RPC (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 149 RPC (unlawful assembly/common object), 380 RPC (theft in a dwelling house), 427 RPC (mischief), 336 RPC (act endangering human life), 325 RPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 323 RPC (voluntarily causing hurt), 354 RPC (outraging the modesty of a woman), 459 RPC (grievous hurt while committing house-trespass or house-breaking by night), 201 RPC (causing disappearance of evidence) and 382 RPC (theft after preparation for causing death, hurt or restraint).

18. The status report states that the challan in FIR No. 56/2012 was presented on 21.08.2013 and charges were framed on 22.09.2013. It further records that prosecution evidence was in progress and that three witnesses had

Location:

been examined at the time of the report. In respect of FIR No. 33/2012, the respondents have referred to a report from the Deputy Director Prosecution, District Kupwara, bearing No. DDP/Kup/Legal/2026/5159 dated 19.08.2026. According to that report, the trial was pending before the Special Mobile Magistrate, Trehgam; out of six prosecution witnesses, five had been examined; the proceedings had reached the stage of recording the applicant’s statement under Section 342 CrPC; and the matter was listed for 12.10.2026.

19. The above particulars are relevant to the extent that they explain the basis on which the respondents say that the applicant’s character and antecedents required further consideration. They cannot, however, be treated as findings that the applicant committed the offences alleged. The registration of an FIR, the filing of a challan, the framing of charges and the recording of prosecution evidence are stages in criminal proceedings; the applicant’s criminal liability, if any, is to be determined

Location:

by the competent criminal court in accordance with law.

20. I have considered the pleadings, the status report and the material available on record, as well as the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The principal issue requiring determination is not whether the applicant must automatically be appointed merely because a compassionate appointment sanction was issued in his favour, but whether his claim can be left unresolved without a final and reasoned decision by the competent authority, particularly when the sanction was subject to specified conditions and the subsequent verification disclosed pending criminal proceedings.

21. The principles governing compassionate appointment have been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein it was held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment and is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of an employee who dies in harness. Similarly,

Location:

in State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is governed by the applicable scheme and that no automatic right to appointment arises merely on account of the death of an employee. Applying these principles to the present case, the applicant’s claim is required to be considered in accordance with the conditions prescribed under SRO-43 of 1994, including verification of character and antecedents. At the same time, the absence of an automatic right to appointment does not absolve the competent authority of its obligation to consider the relevant material and take a reasoned decision in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.

22. At the same time, the existence of a conditional sanction cannot be understood to authorize the competent authority to leave the claim undecided indefinitely. Where the administrative record shows that a sanction was issued, subsequent steps were taken towards appointment, and a

Location:

formal appointment order was withheld on account of a verification report, the competent authority must consider the relevant material and arrive at a decision in accordance with the applicable rules and the principles of fairness. Such consideration must be real and meaningful and should culminate in a reasoned order dealing with the material circumstances of the individual case.

23. The principles governing verification of antecedents and suitability were considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rahul Bansal (supra). In that case, the petitioner’s father had died in 2013, and the petitioner’s name was approved in 2014 for compassionate appointment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Delhi Police, subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and completion of the prescribed formalities. During verification, it emerged that the petitioner had been involved in FIR No. 138/2009. The petitioner had disclosed the criminal case in his attestation form and had been acquitted by the trial court

Location:

on 23.11.2011; however, the authorities treated the acquittal as a technical acquittal, noting that the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile.

24. In Rahul Bansal (supra), a show-cause notice dated 19.11.2015 was issued to the candidate, and, after consideration of his reply, the Screening Committee found his explanation unconvincing and considered him unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force. His candidature was thereafter cancelled by order dated 14.03.2016. The candidate challenged the decision on the ground, inter alia, that he had truthfully disclosed the criminal case and had been acquitted. The Hon’ble High Court examined whether the competent authority was justified in rejecting compassionate appointment after assessing the candidate’s antecedents and suitability.

25. The Hon’ble High Court held, in substance, that truthful disclosure of involvement in a criminal case does not create an indefeasible right to appointment and does not take away the employer’s authority to assess suitability.

Location:

Disclosure is an essential requirement of the recruitment process; it is not, by itself, a factor that compels an employer to overlook the nature of the allegations or the circumstances of the criminal proceedings. The relevant question is whether the candidate is suitable for the post in view of the applicable rules, the nature of the alleged conduct and the responsibilities attached to the employment.

26. In reaching that conclusion, Rahul Bansal (supra) discussed the principles laid down in Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh and Avtar Singh v. Union of India. The discussion in Mehar Singh, as considered by the Hon’ble High Court, recognizes the particular responsibility of a screening authority in recruitment to a disciplined police force. The nature of the alleged offence, the extent of the candidate’s involvement, the circumstances in which the criminal proceedings concluded, and whether the acquittal amounted to complete exoneration or was based on benefit of doubt,

Location:

compromise or witnesses turning hostile may all be relevant to an assessment of suitability. A screening authority is not necessarily bound to treat every acquittal as an unqualified clearance for appointment.

27. The principles discussed in Rahul Bansal (supra) further make it clear that the authority must consider the relevant material and form its view in a fair and bona fide manner. In the context of police recruitment, the need to maintain public confidence, discipline, integrity and the effective discharge of law-and-order responsibilities may justify a careful scrutiny of a candidate’s antecedents. Nevertheless, the decision must be based on the relevant circumstances of the particular case; truthful disclosure cannot be treated as a substitute for the suitability assessment, nor can the existence of a criminal case be mechanically treated as a conclusive determination of unsuitability.

28. The discussion of Avtar Singh in Rahul Bansal (supra) also underscores the distinction between the purpose of

Location:

antecedent verification and the adjudication of criminal guilt. The purpose of verification is to assess suitability for public employment in accordance with the governing rules, not to substitute the employer’s view for the criminal court’s determination of the charges. The authority may take into account relevant circumstances disclosed by the criminal proceedings, but it must not treat an allegation as though it were a judicial finding of guilt.

29. The Hon’ble High Court in Rahul Bansal (supra) also considered the decisions in Commissioner of Police and Another v. Vidur and Mahesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others, in which the discretion of the employer in matters of police recruitment and the limited scope of judicial review were discussed. The principle emerging from that discussion is that a court does not ordinarily substitute its own assessment of suitability for that of the competent authority where the authority has considered the relevant material and taken a bona fide decision. Judicial review, however, remains available

Location:

where the decision-making process is vitiated by mala fides, manifest arbitrariness, patent illegality or other recognized grounds warranting interference.

30. The facts in Rahul Bansal (supra) must, however, be distinguished from the circumstances presently before me. In that case, the candidate had already been acquitted in the criminal case, and the competent authority had issued a show-cause notice, considered the candidate’s reply, and thereafter passed an order cancelling his candidature on the basis of an assessment by the Screening Committee. The Hon’ble High Court examined that completed decision-making process and found no ground to interfere with the authority’s conclusion.

31. In the present case, the record refers to two criminal cases which, according to the respondents’ own status report, were pending trial at the relevant stage. The material placed before me does not disclose a subsequent conviction or acquittal in either case. Nor does the status report disclose a final, reasoned order by the competent

Location:

authority determining the applicant’s claim after considering the CID report, the nature and status of the criminal proceedings, the terms of the compassionate appointment sanction and the applicant’s response, if any. The present matter, therefore, cannot be decided merely by applying the result reached on the particular facts of Rahul Bansal (supra).

32. The judgment in Rahul Bansal (supra) does not lay down that every person against whom an FIR is registered must be denied appointment. Its reasoning instead recognizes the employer’s responsibility to assess suitability on the basis of relevant material and the applicable service requirements. That assessment must be made by the competent authority in the first instance, and it must be supported by reasons which disclose that the relevant circumstances have been considered. In the present case, the existence of pending proceedings is a relevant consideration, but it cannot be equated with proof of the offences alleged or treated, without further

Location:

consideration, as an automatic and conclusive bar to the applicant’s claim.

33. I have also considered the judgment in Arsam Imtyaz Malik (supra), relied upon by the applicant. The said matter concerned compassionate appointment under SRO- 43 and the withdrawal of an appointment after the candidate had disclosed a pending criminal case. The decision is relevant to the extent that it underscores the need for the competent authority to act in accordance with law when considering antecedents and the effect of criminal proceedings. The precise relief in each case, however, depends upon its own facts, the stage of appointment, the terms of the applicable scheme and the nature of the administrative decision under challenge. The said judgment cannot be read as conferring an automatic right to appointment irrespective of the governing conditions or the facts of the individual case.

34. In Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered

Location:

the cancellation of a candidate’s candidature for the post of Head Constable on account of his failure to disclose his involvement in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC arising from an incident when he was about 20 years of age. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that youthful indiscretions should be considered with a reformative approach rather than treating a person as a criminal for the remainder of his life, particularly where the incident was not of a serious nature. The said judgment, however, has to be appreciated in the context of its own facts and cannot be read as laying down that the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of a criminal case are irrelevant to the assessment of suitability for public employment. The principles emerging from the judgments relied upon by the applicant must, therefore, be applied to the present case in the light of the applicable scheme, the nature of the post and the material available on record.

35. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, I

Location:

find that the applicant’s claim cannot be allowed merely on the basis of the original sanction or the earlier order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, which did not remain operative following the appellate judgment dated 17.11.2022. At the same time, the fact that the appointment process remained incomplete following the adverse verification report calls for a final decision by the competent authority in accordance with law. The respondents’ own status report records the sanction, the subsequent administrative proceedings, the CID verification report and the correspondence seeking further directions. These circumstances require a considered decision rather than an indefinite continuation of the pending process.

36. In considering the applicant’s claim, the competent authority will have to examine the terms and conditions of Government Order No. 507-Home (SRO-43) of 2014 dated 30.10.2014, the relevant provisions of SRO-43 of 1994, the subsequent administrative proceedings including

Location:

APHQ Order No. 399 of 2015 dated 28.05.2015, and the CID verification report dated 07.08.2015. It will also have to consider the status of FIR Nos. 33/2012 and 56/2012 from the relevant criminal-court records, the exact offences and charges recorded in those proceedings, and any subsequent developments material to the applicant’s claim. The decision shall be based on the verified record and the applicable rules and legal principles.

37. The nature of the post for which the applicant seeks appointment is also a relevant consideration. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in society. People repose great faith and confidence in it, and it must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and must possess impeccable character and integrity. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685, the suitability of a candidate

Location:

seeking entry into the police force has to be assessed with due regard to the nature of the post, the responsibilities attached thereto and the material disclosed during verification of character and antecedents. The mere fact of acquittal or discharge cannot, in every case, be treated as conclusive of suitability; equally, the mere registration or pendency of a criminal case cannot, without an assessment of the relevant circumstances, be treated as an automatic bar to appointment.

38. Accordingly, while considering the applicant’s claim, the competent authority shall undertake an objective and individual assessment of his character and antecedents, including his past conduct and the circumstances relating to the criminal incidents in question. The competent authority shall ultimately determine, by applying the governing scheme and the applicable legal principles, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is suitable for appointment to the post in the Police/Armed Police. The authority must make an

Location:

individual assessment in accordance with the applicable scheme and service requirements, taking into account the nature of the post and the responsibilities attached to it. The applicant’s claim must be decided on its own merits in accordance with law.

39. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by directing the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s claim for completion of the appointment process and issuance of a formal appointment order pursuant to the compassionate appointment sanction accorded in his favour vide Government Order No. 507-Home (SRO-43) of 2014 dated 30.10.2014, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned order. While doing so, the competent authority shall take into account the subsequent administrative proceedings, the CID verification report dated 07.08.2015, the status and particulars of FIR Nos. 33/2012 and 56/2012, the applicable provisions of SRO-43 of 1994, the nature and requirements of the post, and the legal

Location:

principles discussed hereinabove. The authority shall neither treat the allegations in the FIRs as proof of guilt nor regard the mere pendency of the criminal cases as automatically conclusive of the applicant’s suitability or unsuitability.

40. It is clarified that this direction does not amount to a finding on the merits of the criminal proceedings, nor does it direct the respondents to grant appointment automatically. The competent authority shall independently examine the relevant record, consider the applicant’s claim in accordance with the applicable rules and law, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is served upon it. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the applicant.

41. In view of the foregoing, the Transfer Application is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

42. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also

Location:

stand disposed of.

43. The Registry shall consign the record to the record room after due completion.

(JUSTICE RITU TAGORE) Member(Judl.)

16.10.2026 DEVENDRA TRIPATHI

Location: