PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Charge sheeted before a criminal court but finally acquitted, whether by way of benefit of doubt or honourably – would it be a relevant consideration in appraising the suitability of a candidate who successfully clears the selection process to be appointed to an armed force of the Union, is the question which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition.

2. Successfully clearing the selection process to be appointed as a Constable (GD) in a Central Armed Police Force, as per marks obtained by him and keeping in view his preference, the petitioner was offered appointment as a Constable (GD) in CISF and was called upon to fill the enrolment form. In the column applicable where the candidates had to disclose whether they were an accused in any criminal case, the petitioner dutifully informed that the was a co-accused in FIR No.2011 dated July 05, 2008 registered with PS Narnaund (Hissar) for offences punishable under Section 323/324/307/120-B/34 IPC. He disclosed that he had been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated December 19, 2008.

3. It is thus not a case of concealment.

4. On February 23, 2015 the offer of appointment was withdrawn. It was based on the report by the Screening Committee which opined that on account of the petitioner being an accused in the FIR aforenoted, notwithstanding he being acquitted, his character antecedents did not justify petitioner’s appointment as a Constable in an armed force of the Union.

5. The petitioner has filed the instant petition and relies upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported as (2015) 2 SCC 377 Jogender Singh Vs. UT of Chandigarh & Ors. wherein Jogender Singh who was acquitted at a criminal trial for an offence of constituting an unlawful assembly and causing simple and grievous hurt to persons as also attempting to murder a person was held entitled to be appointed as a Constable in the Union Territory of Delhi. The decision shows that the acquittal was on account of the fact that the witnesses could not identify the assailants and stated that their signatures were obtained on a blank sheet of paper by the Investigating Officer. Even the injured eye witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. With reference to the decision reported as 2013 (1) SCC 598 Insp.General of Police Vs. S.Samuthiram the Supreme Court held that an acquittal would be ‘honourable’ in every sense when the prosecution leads full evidence but miserably fails to prove the charge. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing writ petition filed by Jogender Singh against the decision to deny him employment as a Constable was reversed. The Supreme Court held that the past alleged conduct of Jogender Singh was irrelevant.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents heavily relied upon the decision of another Division Bench of the Supreme Court reported as (2013) 7 SCC 685 Commissioner of Police New Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh where a decision of this Court in favour of Mehar Singh who was likewise charged for a criminal offence but acquitted at the trial but was denied employment as a constable in Delhi Police was reversed by the Supreme Court in which opinion in paragraph 26 and 35 the Supreme Court observed as under:-

“26. In light of above, we are of the opinion that since the purpose of departmental proceedings is to keep persons, who are guilty of serious misconduct or dereliction of duty or who are guilty of grave cases of moral turpitude, out of the department, if found necessary, because they pollute the department, surely the above principles will apply with more vigour at the point of entry of a person in the police department i.e. at the time of recruitment. If it is found by the Screening Committee that the person against whom a serious case involving moral turpitude is registered is discharged on technical grounds or is acquitted of the same charge but the acquittal is not honourable, the Screening Committee