The importance of examining criminal antecedents and the nature of acquittal before offering appointment, particularly in the disciplined security forces, and the relevance of moral turpitude in determining suitability for appointment.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition of the humble petitioner and be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order/letter dated 06.08.2013 and be further pleased to direct the respondents to give the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) BSF. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

That the cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.02.2011, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (GD). During the Physical Efficiency Test/ Character Verification, petitioner himself submitted that one criminal case for the offences under Section 341, 323, 325 & 143 of IPC was under trial against the petitioner and nothing was suppressed from the employer. Thereafter, the the petitioner was acquitted for the aforesaid offences by giving benefit of doubt by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.05.2015. However, the petitioner has been denied appointment by the respondents vide order dated 06.08.2013, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.05.2015 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Constable in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.02.2011.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that during the Physical Efficiency Test/Character Verification, it was found that one criminal case for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 & 143 of IPC was registered against the petitioner in which though the learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioner on the ground of benefit of doubt but the same is not a clean acquittal. Counsel further submits that it is for the Selection Committee to adjudge the suitability of the candidate, more particularly, for appointment in the Disciplined Security Forces and looking to the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled for appointment in the Disciplined Security Forces.

5. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Love Kush Meena, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 774 where in paras-24, 25 & 28 it has been held as under :-

"24. Examining the controversy in the present case in the conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, what is important to note is the fact that the view of this Court has depended on the nature of offence charged and the result of the same. The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the Accused. No doubt, in that facts of the present case, the person who ran the tractor over the deceased lady was one of the other co-Accused but the role assigned to the others including the Respondent herein was not of a mere bystander or being present at site. The attack with knives was alleged against all the other co-Accused including the Respondent.

25. We may also notice this is a clear case where the endeavour was to settle the dispute, albeit not with the job in mind. This is obvious from the recital in the judgment of the Trial Court that the compoundable offences were first compounded during trial but since the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC could not be compounded, the Trial Court continued and qua those offences the witnesses turned hostile. We are of the view that this can hardly fall under the category of a clean acquittal and the Judge wa