The mere acquittal in a criminal case does not guarantee appointment; a contextual assessment of suitability based on the nature of allegations is crucial.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

By way of the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) Direct the Respondents to set aside and quash order dated 06.12.2024 and award all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, seniority, arrears of pay, fixation of pay at par with other similarly placed, to the Applicant; and

(ii) 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 leading to registration of FIR No. 413/2022 against him at PS –PS Hathras Gate, Uttar Pradesh. The said case culminated in a clear acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 01.01.2024, the relevant portion of which, reads as under:

“….I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned prosecution officer and perused all the evidence available on record PWI Bablu stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident occurred about 3 years ago when he had an argument with the accused over rent money and goods. They assaulted him and refused to return the security deposit and threatened to kill him when he asked for it. He filed a complaint under section 156(3) CrPC in court to get the FIR registered. However, in cross-examination, this witness stated that there was only an argument over rent, goods and money given earlier. Many people gathered hearing the commotion.

The accused neither assaulted him nor threatened to kill him. He was declared hostile on prosecution's request. In further cross-examination, he stated that police did not record his statement under section 161 CrPC and he does not know how they wrote it. He knows the accused well as they live in neighboring areas. He reiterated that the accused did not assault or threaten him, and he does not have any dues from them. He filed the case due to misunderstanding after consulting a lawyer. Thus, this witness has not supported the prosecution case in cross-examination, even though he is the complainant himself. The prosecution has examined only one witness, who has not supported the prosecution story in his testimony. No other witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has not provided any evidence on record that proves the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused deserve to be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

Order

The accused Shyam Singh, Sachin Kumar Rana, Ranvir Singh and Hariom are acquitted of the charges under sections 323, 406, 506 IPC. The accused are on hail Their bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled and their sureties are hscharged from their liabilities. The accused shall comply with section 437A CrPC.”

2.1. Highlighting the aforesaid, learned counsel argued that despite such acquittal, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.2024 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 nature of the dispute, and the judicial findings exonerating him. However, disregarding the acquittal, the respondents mechanically cancelled the applicant’s candidature vide the impugned order dated 06.12.2024, giving rise to the present Original Application.

2.2. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature is arbitrary, unreasonable, and dehors the applicable instructions and guidelines. It was contended that the decision of the competent authority has been taken in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Learne