JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is son of one Dinesh Yadav. Full brother of Dinesh Yadav had lodged an FIR on 01.08.2014 giving rise to Gaya Muffasil P.S. Case No. 370 of 2014 with the allegation that he, with the help of his labourer, was making ridge in his agricultural land when the petitioner, petitioner’s father, petitioner’s mother and petitioner’s sister came variously armed. The petitioner was carrying a pistol, petitioner’s mother and his sister were carrying lathis whereas petitioner’s father was carrying a khanti (Iron rod sharpened at one end). It was alleged against the petitioner in the FIR that at the point of pistol he had snatched a chain. There is allegation against the petitioner’s father of having made assault on one Santosh Yadav with khanti and petitioner’s mother and sister on the informant with lathis causing injuries. No allegation in the FIR was there against the petitioner of having caused any physical assault leading to any physical injury. Family feud is manifestly the reason behind lodging of the FIR, which can be easily culled out on reading of the FIR itself.

2. Be that as it may, the criminal case was registered, levelling commission of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet was submitted against the persons named in the FIR including the petitioner. Charge was framed against them for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 323/34, 341/34 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. They were put to trial. They were finally acquitted by learned Sessions Judge, Gaya vide judgment and order dated 20.06.2017 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 181 of 2017. Paragraph 10 of the judgment of the trial court is being reproduced hereinbelow :-

“10. In this way, none of the witnesses has supported the content of written report of the informant and there is inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Even the informant has not stated that accused persons assaulted him and his son rather he has stated that he and his son sustained injury by brick (Dhela-Dheli). From the above discussions, I find that prosecution has miserably failed to prove charge against the accused persons.

In the result, the accused persons are held not guilty and they are acquitted from all charges and they are also discharged from the liability of their respective bailbond.”

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had participated in a process of selection for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) organized by the Staff Selection Commission. After having undergone the process of selection, he was offered appointment by the Commandant, CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro vide letter dated 22.03.2017. He was asked to join the post on 01.05.2017 and attend basic training scheduled to commence with effect from 08.05.2017. He complied with the said letter dated 22.03.2017. At no point of time, during the process of selection or subsequent thereto, the petitioner ever concealed about his implication in the criminal case.

4. It appears that subsequently the petitioner’s selection/ appointment as Constable was subjected to scrutiny, along with other candidates for adjudging suitability for his appointment in CISF, in view of his criminal history. The petitioner has been communicated a letter dated 18.03.2019, issued by the Commandant, CISF, RTC, Deoli to the effect that he has been found unsuitable for appointment in CISF, consequent upon examination of his criminal history, by 19th Screening Committee assembled at the office of the CISF Headquarters, New Delhi on 31.12.2018.

5. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ application giving rise to CWJC No. 10220 of 2018, whereby the petitioner had sought for a direction to the respondents for taking appropriate decision on his case which was pending for scrutiny before the authorities. The writ application was disposed of on 19.02.2019 by this Court permitting the petitioner to make a fre