The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for stricter scrutiny for appointment in a disciplinary force, considering the nature of acquittal, gravity of the offence charged, and the nature of evidence collected during investigation.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. On the strength of being acquitted at the criminal trials, the petitioners question they not being appointed as Constables in the Railway Protection Force.

2. All petitioners successfully cleared the selection process to be appointed as constables in the Railway Protection Force but found employment eluding them when the department found that all of them withheld relevant information concerning their character and antecedents, in that, all of them did not disclose that they were accused of having committed penal offences. All the petitioners were acquitted at the criminal trial and suffice it to note that a criminal record of a person’s past history is relevant to assess the person’s trustworthiness and in matters relating to public service and especially when the person would carry arms it would be in the interest of the public that the person should be subjected to a strict scrutiny.

3. The four petitioners have a grievance concerning the same selection process which commenced in the year 2011. Clearing the written examination as also the physical endurance test the petitioners were required to fill in the attestation forms which had a column to disclose whether the candidate was an accused in any FIR or had or was facing a criminal trial and if yes, the particulars thereof. Against the applicable column all the petitioners wrote NO. All of them were given provisional employment requiring them to specifically depose on an affidavit that none of them was ever an accused in any FIR nor had faced a criminal trial. All of them deposed in the affidavit that none of them had ever been named as an accused for having committed any offence and none had faced a criminal trial.

4. But the truth is otherwise. Concededly, petitioner Deepak Kumar, when a juvenile, was named as an accused in FIR No.181/2003 registered at PS Sadar Sonepat on a complaint made by one Sandeep who stated that Deepak and his associates had entered his house and grievously injured him using a knife. The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 323/308/452/34 IPC. The juvenile court acquitted him on May 11, 2005 noting that the witnesses had turned hostile and claimed that the police had obtained their signatures on blank papers. The witnesses did not identify Deepak. Even the complainant Sandeep turned hostile. As an adult Deepak was named as an accused in FIR No.220/2007 registered at PS Sadar Distt. Sonepat at the complaint lodged by one Amit for offences punishable under Section 148/149/323/325 IPC. All witnesses were not examined at the trial. Only the complainant was examined who turned hostile resulting in Deepak being acquitted vide judgment dated October 21, 2008.

5. Rahul, the petitioner of WP(C)No.6645/2015 was named as an accused by one Vijay Pal Singh resulting in FIR No.216/2012 PS Gulavathi Distt. Bulandshahar being registered for offences punishable under Section 323/308/452/34 IPC. As per the complainant Rahul along with his associates had entered his house and beaten his son and mother; the latter being grievously hurt. All the witnesses turned hostile resulting in Rahul being acquitted vide judgment dated February 18, 2015.

6. Bhagwan Sahay Meena the petitioner of WP(C)No.7079/2015 was an accused in FIR No.355/2004 PS Bandikui Distt. Dausa for offence punishable under Section 498-A/304-B IPC and in the alternative for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC concerning death of his wife and infant daughter who had admittedly died being overrun by a train on July 13, 2004. The witnesses of last having seen him walk towards the railway track with his wife and infant female child turned hostile. Even the parents and the brother of the deceased turned hostile on dowry demands and cruelty upon the wife. This resulted in it being a case of no evidence and the prosecution could not prove that Bhagwan Sahay pushed his wife who was holding the infant daughter in her hand on to the railway track when a fast