Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Being selected in the year 2009 to be appointed as a Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police, required to fill up an Enrollment Form, the respondent filled up the required columns of the Enrollment Form and honestly informed that he was an accused in FIR No.152/1999, P.S.Kotwali, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 19/54 of the Excise Act and Section 353 IPC. He disclosed that he had been acquitted vide judgment dated April 02, 2005.

2. Since character and antecedents verification is important whenever a person is offered a public employment and in particular to a police organization, for purposes of character and antecedent verification of those who have been acquitted at a criminal trial, the Commissioner of Police has constituted a Screening Committee which looks into: (i) the nature of the acquittal; (ii) nature of the acts alleged to have been committed by the person either as mentioned in the FIR or as per material gathered during investigation; and (iii) any other relevant fact on the subject of the acquittal.

3. The Screening Committee considered the allegation in the FIR No.152/1999 and the evidence led at the criminal trial and the judgment dated April 02, 2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu acquitting the respondent.

4. Seven witnesses were examined at the trial. The first prosecution witness, a police officer named Virender Pal, had deposed that on May 07, 1999 he was accompanying the SHO who was on patrolling duty and that they saw a TATA 407 make vehicle coming from Mandava side at around 2:45 and when signaled to stop the vehicle sped towards Churu and on being chased, after some distance the occupants of the vehicle abandoned the vehicle and fled. The van was seized. Beer and foreign made liquor bottles were recovered from the van. SI Hari Singh PW-2 corroborated PW1 with additional information that 30 cartons of beer and foreign made alcohol were seized. Om Prakash PW-3, another police officer, corroborated PW-1 and PW-2 and so did Ct.Hukmi Chand PW-4. Balbir Singh PW-5, a witness to the seizure memo Ex.P-4 pertaining to the registration documents of TATA 407 make vehicle deposed that he was a witness to the seizure memo when papers of the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-18G-0407 were seized. Jai Narain PW-6 deposed that he owned the vehicle and that he was not in a position to state as to who was driving the vehicle when the same was seized and liquor recovered from the vehicle. With reference to he having told the police that respondent Mahinder was driving the vehicle on the day of the incident he stated that he was an illiterate person. Admitting his signatures on Ex.P-5, he stated that the writing therein was not his and that he did not know who wrote it. Phool Chand PW-7, a police officer deposed that during investigation he had prepared the site plan Ex.P-3 and since the vehicle was abandoned he gave a notice to the owner of the vehicle under Section 133 MV Act to which reply Ex.P-5 was received.

5. Applying the standard of proof being beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence should be of a quality pointing only towards the guilt of the respondent and ruling out his innocence, since the only witness who could have proved that it was the respondent who was driving the vehicle on the day in question i.e. Jai Narain, did not support the case of the prosecution, vide decision dated April 02, 2005 the respondent was acquitted.

6. The Screening Committee opined that on the subject to character and antecedent verification the nature of acquittal was of a kind where respondent’s character and antecedent could not said to be without a blemish and a taint, and thus the Competent Authority issued a notice to the respondent highlighting that though the respondent was acquitted, but the same was on account of his identity not being established at the criminal trial as the driver of the vehicle; ke