Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically confer a right to appointment in the police service, especially when the acquittal is not a clean one.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Direct the Respondents to set aside and quash order dated 04.11.2024 and grant appointment to the Applicant w.e.f. the date when others who had participated in the examination and succeeded, were granted appointment;

(ii) Direct the Respondents to award all consequential benefits, including back wages, continuity of service, seniority, arrears of pay, fixation of pay at par with other similarly placed, to the Applicant; and

(iii) Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a duly selected candidate for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male, who successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process and truthfully disclosed his involvement in a criminal case arising out of a trivial village dispute leading to registration of FIR No. 42/2020 against him at PS –Ramkola, Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh. The said case culminated in a clear acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 13.05.2024, wherein the prosecution witnesses failed to support the allegations, the complainant denied his earlier statement, and the court recorded categorical findings that no material, evidence, or testimony existed to establish the applicant’s involvement in the alleged offence. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.05.2024, reads as under:

“The prosecution, for proving its case, has examined only two witnesses. The complainant of the case, Shailesh, was examined as PW-1, and Rajkumar was examined as PW-2. The aforesaid witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case in their respective examination-in-chief. In addition to this, no other witness has been examined on behalf of the complainant in the present case. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution case falls within the realm of doubt. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons has admitted the formal truthfulness of the prosecution documents; however, this fact alone cannot be the basis of any adverse presumption against the defence, because in the matter in question no credible evidence or testimony in support of the charges has been produced by the prosecution through which the charges levelled against the accused persons could be verified.Thus, there is nothing in the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses which points towards the guilt of the accused persons. Therefore, on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses available on record, the accused persons Shubham Pathak, Kinnu Yadav @ Rajendra, and Shailesh Yadav cannot be convicted.

In view of the aforesaid analysis and all the evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons Shubham Pathak, Kinnu Yadav @ Rajendra, and Shailesh Yadav, punishable under Sections 323, 504, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, by giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons, it is justified to acquit them of the charges levelled against them.”

2.1. Highlighting the aforesaid, learned counsel argued that despite such acquittal, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2024 questioning the applicant’s suitability solely on account of his past involvement in the criminal case. The applicant submitted a detailed reply explaining the circumstances of the case, the trivial nat