The main legal point established in the judgment is that an acquittal in a criminal case should be carefully examined to determine its implications on the suitability for appointment in government services.

S. Muralidhar, J.

The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 3rd June 2017 issued by the Senior Commandant (TRG), CISF in the office of the Director, National Industrial Security Academy (NISA), Hyderabad cancelling the provisional offer of appointment made to the Petitioner as Sub Inspector (Exe) in the CISF.

2. The background facts are that the Petitioner applied for the post of SI (Exe) in the CISF and took the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) Examination, 2015. Upon being successful in the examination, he was issued a letter dated 15th September 2016 by Respondent No.5 provisionally appointing him as SI Executive in the CISF subject to character and antecedent verification. He was asked to report to the Director NISA, Hakimpet, Hyderabad on 22nd October 2016 for basic training.

3. The Petitioner states that he complied with the directions in the letter dated 15th September 2016 and submitted all relevant documents including character certificate. He also submitted copy of a judgment dated 22nd January 2015 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Firozpur, Khirka at Punangwan (Haryana) in Criminal Case No.426 of 2010 whereby he was acquitted for the offences under Sections 148/149/323/324/325 IPC. However, the Petitioner was not permitted to join the basic training along with his batch-mates and was told that he would be communicated further directions in due course. Thereafter, his appointment offer was cancelled by the Standing Screening Committee by impugned letter dated 3rd June 2017 on the ground that he was not suitable for appointment in the CISF.

4. In response to the notice issued in the petition the Respondents have contended that in terms of the notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 1st February 2012, a candidate will not be considered suitable for appointment where a criminal case has been filed and the charges fall in the category of serious offences and later the candidate is acquitted by extending "benefit of doubt" or because witnesses have turned hostile "due to fear of reprisal by the accused persons." In the present case, since the offence under Section 325 IPC was a serious offence as per the guidelines framed in terms of the directions issued in WP(C) 2930 of 2011 (Het Ram Meena v. Union of India), the Petitioner was not found suitable for appointment in the CISF.

5. Mr. S.N. Kaul, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the decision of this Court dated 20th September 2012 in WP(C) 1530 of 2012 (Mintu Mistri v. Union of India), decision dated 3rd December 2014 in WP(C) 1029 of 2014 (Sandeep Singh v. Union of India) decision dated 3rd December 2014 in WP(C) 1028 of 2014 (Praveen Kumar v. Union of India), and Joginder Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, (2015) 2 SCC 377 to urge that the acquittal was an honourable one and not on technical grounds and, therefore, the impugned order of the Respondents was unsustainable in law. He pointed out that the SLPs filed by the Union of India against the decisions of this Court in Praveen Kumar (supra) and Sandeep Singh (supra) were dismissed by the Supreme Court of India. It is, therefore, contended that the Respondents cannot be selective in not implementing those decisions vis-avis the Petitioner.

6. This Court has carefully examined the relevant memorandum dated 1st February 2012 issued by the "Police-II Division" of the MHA on the topic of "policy guidelines for considering cases of candidates for appointment in CAPFs. Relevant to the case in hand is para V which reads as under:

"V. Notwithstanding the provisions of 3(iii) above, such candidates against whom chargesheet in a criminal case has been filed in the court and the charges fall in the category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though later on acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or acquitted for the reasons that the witness have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused person(s), he/she will generally not be considered suitable for appointment in the C