ORDER :

Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai :

This intra-court Writ Appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court at Indore in Writ Petition No.4019/2024.

2. By the said impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the actions of the respondents, thereby upholding the cancellation of the appellant’s provisional appointment.

3. The appellant had approached the Writ Court praying to set-aside the termination order dated 22.11.2023, whereby his provisional offer of appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force (BSF) was abruptly cancelled.

4. Furthermore, the appellant sought the quashing of the subsequent rejection order dated 09.02.2024, by which his representation for reinstatement, filed following his acquittal in the criminal trial, was dismissed by the Authorities.

Facts of the Case

5. The appellant is a citizen of India who participated in the Staff Selection Commission General Duty Exam 2022 and was successfully selected on merit for the post of Constable (GD).

6. Following his selection, the appellant received an appointment letter dated 28.08.2023 issued by the Office of the Inspector General, Central School of Weapons and Tactics, BSF (CSWT, BSF), Indore.

7. Complying with the directions in the appointment letter, the appellant joined the CSWT, BSF at Indore Office on 27.10.2023 to undergo training and complete the requisite enrollment formalities.

8. During the joining and verification formalities, the appellant truthfully and voluntarily disclosed that a criminal case was pending against him under Sections 323, 325, 294, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered vide Crime No.762/2022 at Police Station Kotwali, Shivpuri.

9. On the sole basis of this honest disclosure regarding the pending criminal trial, the respondents issued an order dated 22.11.2023, terminating the appellant’s appointment.

10. Barely a week later, on 28.11.2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri, passed a judgment in Criminal Case No.1152/2022, wherein the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant.

11. The appellant subsequently submitted a detailed representation on 24.01.2024 to the Senior Officials, bringing the judgment of acquittal to their notice and praying for the restoration of his appointment.

12. Respondent No.3 arbitrarily rejected this representation vide order dated 09.02.2024, reasoning that the acquittal was not "clean" but based on the "benefit of doubt," citing an official circular memo dated 18.07.2019.

Contentions of the Appellant

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a young boy of 22 years, and the allegedly frivolous criminal complaint was lodged when he was merely 20 years old.

14. It is fiercely contended that the charges levelled against the appellant under Sections 323, 325, 294, and 34 of the IPC are not heinous in nature. The incident arose out of a trivial, sudden dispute over sounding a motorcycle horn, lacking any premeditation or grave criminal intent.

15. The appellant emphasizes that such acts do not involve moral turpitude, and treating these non-heinous allegations as an absolute bar to public employment is a disproportionate and excessively harsh punishment.

16. It is further argued that the appellant did not suppress any material facts; he honestly furnished the information regarding the pending case when asked by the employer, and has been penalized precisely for his transparency.

17. Relying upon settled jurisprudence, the appellant argues that a candidate should not be deprived of public employment merely because the trial court used the expression "benefit of doubt," as the concept of a "clean" or "honorable" acquittal is unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

18. The appellant submits that in the criminal trial, the complainant turned completely hostile, and the other witnesses did not whisper a word agai