The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of acquittal after due appreciation of evidence in determining the suitability for appointment and the distinction between grave and serious offences and minor indiscretions made by young people in the context of employment decisions.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. The present writ petition raises a challenge to the order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the Tribunal allowed the Original Application No.545/2012 filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the petitioner herein cancelling the candidature of the respondent to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in the Delhi Police.

2. The respondent had applied for being considered for appointment to the post of Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2009. At this juncture, it is observed that it is an admitted position that while filling the application form, the respondent had disclosed in the relevant column of the said form about his alleged involvement in a criminal case.

3. The candidature of the respondent was approved for appointment by the petitioner subject to verification of his antecedents, moral character, medical fitness etc.

4. On seeking a verification report from the concerned authority about the respondent, the Delhi Police was informed that the respondent had been involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.506/2008 under Section 307/34, 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) registered at Khekda, District Bagpat, U.P., in which the respondent had been acquitted by the Sessions Court, Bagpat on 08.10.2009.

5. According to the petitioner, in accordance with the guidelines formulated for such candidates, the case of the respondent was sent to the Screening Committee for determination of his suitability for appointment. After the case of the respondent was considered by the Screening Committee, a Show Cause Notice dated 14.03.2011 was issued to the respondent to explain why his candidature should not be cancelled. The respondent duly replied to the said Show Cause Notice by stating therein that a false FIR was registered against him and that he had no active role to play in the crime committed but had been falsely implicated in the said crime which was in fact a counterblast to the complaint filed on behalf of the respondent.

6. The petitioner, however, after taking into account the reply of the respondent, rejected the same and cancelled the candidature of the respondent with immediate effect vide a termination letter dated 22.03.2011.

7. It would be pertinent to note that a bare perusal of the termination letter reveals that there is no independent material other than the contents of the FIR on which the petitioner have relied to cancel the candidature of the respondent.

8. Aggrieved by the said termination letter dated 22.03.2011 the respondent approached Central Administrative Tribunal praying for an order to quash the said termination letter dated 22.03.2011.

9. The Tribunal allowed O.A. No.545/2012 vide the impugned order dated 07.03.2012 and set aside the termination letter dated 22.03.2011.

10. Before adverting to the rival contentions and decisions relied upon by the parties it would be appropriate to narrate the circumstances in which the respondent came to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Section 307/34, 323 IPC. It is seen that the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 08.10.2009 acquitted the respondent after giving him benefit of doubt as the complainant and the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. A plain reading of the said judgment itself reveals that the allegations against the respondent of opening fire against one Mohit, had not been proved, inasmuch as, the MLC report conducted on the said Mohit did not refer to any injuries that may have been sustained by Mohit. It is, therefore, observed that the respondent came to be acquitted after the examination of all the witnesses and upon due appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and that the present is not a case of acquittal on technical grounds.

11. Counsel appearing on behalf of