By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

The present matter has been taken up for hearing

with the consent of both the parties as the issue involved

is very short.

2.

The applicant had filed this Original Application

(OA), under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals

Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“8.1 To quash and set aside the order dated

2.7.2021, the appointment of applicant to the post of

MTS be restored and applicant be given appointment

to the post of MTS in pursuance of offer of

appointment

letter

dated

17.7.2018

with

all

consequential

benefits

including

seniority

&

promotion and pay & allowance.

Or/and

Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit

and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.”

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant draws our

attention to the Order dated 27.05.2022 passed by this

Tribunal. The relevant extract of the said order is

reproduced as under:-

3 OA No.1431/2022

“Learned counsel for the applicant presses for grant

of interim relief, in terms of para 9 of the OA, which

is in the form of a direction to the respondents to

keep one post of MTS, under UR category, under the

present

relevant

selection

process

vacant,

till

pendency of the present OA.

Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the

issue involved in the present OA is squarely covered

by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in

(2016), 8 SCC 471. On the other hand, learned

counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes

such prayer of the applicant for grant of interim

relief.

We have heard learned counsels for the parties on

the prayer of the applicant for grant of interim relief.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as an

interim measure, it is ordered that any appointment

to the post of MTS under un-reserved category,

arising out of the relevant selection process, shall be

subject to outcome of the present OA.”

4.

Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for

the applicant would not dispute that upon selection on

the post of MTS, the respondents issued an offer of

appointment

No.

3/PErs/A-1/1098/911

dated

17.07.2018 at an initial pay of Rs.18,000/- in the Pay

Level-1 as per 7^th CPC in Canteen Stores Department,

Ministry of Defence at Mumbai. Thereafter, he was

further directed to submit a letter of acceptance in

respect of offer of appointment with the requisite

documents. He gave acceptance to join the duty along

with requisite documents on 17.07.2018. Thereafter, on

19.09.2018, he was directed to fill a fresh proforma of

CSF-4 Form as he inadvertently left the column Nos. 4,

4 OA No.1431/2022

12, and 13 blank on 28.7.2018. Accordingly, he filled the

CSF-4 Form on 01.12.2018, wherein he disclosed that he

was falsely implicated in criminal case FIR No-121 u/s

148/149/323/324/ 452/506 of IPC dated 31.03.2014 at

P.S.-Matlauda, Panipat. He was honourably acquitted

from all the charges on 04.05.2015. However, the

respondents issued an order dated 02.07.2024, whereby

the appointment of the applicant to the post of MTS

(wrongly written as LDC in impugned order) has been

cancelled and further dossier of applicant was returned to

SSC (NWR).

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant stated the

appointment of the applicant to the post of MTS was

cancelled on the ground that acquittal of applicant in

criminal case is not honourable and further the

complainant and prosecution witnesses turned hostile,

whereas it is clearly evident in judgment dated

04.05.2015 that the acquittal was not on „benefit of

doubt‟ but it was on the basis that there was no evidence.

He places reliance on the judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High

Court in case of Sandeep Singh Vs. GNCTD in WPC No.-

5675/2017 dated 10.12.2019 and his cas