An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically grant eligibility for sensitive positions; candidates must be assessed on individual merits.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

By way of the present O.A. the applicant seeks following reliefs:-

“A. Call for records of the case;

B. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06/12/2024;

C. Direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicant in the post of Constable (Driver) under OBC category with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, seniority, increment etc;

D. Award cost of the proceedings: and

E. Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the Applicant.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a meritorious candidate who participated in the recruitment process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission for appointment under Delhi Police and successfully qualified all stages of selection including the Computer Based Examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST)/Trade Test and Medical Examination, scoring above the prescribed cut- off marks. During verification, the applicant made a truthful disclosure in his attestation form regarding FIR No. 524/2015 dated 02.07.2015 registered at PS Kotputli, Jaipur Rural under Sections 143 /283/427 IPC , in which he was falsely implicated. The said criminal case culminated in an honorable acquittal after full appreciation of evidence, as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the applicant. Further, learned counsel highlighted para 18 of the Trial Court judgment dated 23.01.2019, which reads as under:

“18. Similarly, both the independent witnesses PD-01 Banshidhar and PD-07 Suresh Kumar examined by the prosecution as witnesses of the incident on the file are hostile and do not support the story told by the prosecution regarding the incident. Also, while the complainant Tarachand states that Arvind, Harshvardhan, Yogesh, Balwant, Khemchand were caught at the scene of the incident, the witness of the incident Amin, on the contrary, states that Abhishek, Surendra, Yogesh, Khemchand, Tarachand were caught and the other police witness PD Devendra states that Ravi, Sanjay, Surendra were caught at the scene of the incident. In this way, the witnesses of the scene of the incident themselves take the names of different persons in the arrest. PD-02 Ajit Singh, despite being a witness to the arrest, states that he does not know from where Shish Ram was arrested and does not recognize Shish Ram, which makes his presence on the facts related to the arrest doubtful. Similarly, PD-03 Balbir also states that he does not recognize the arrested persons Arvind, Balwant, Khemchand, Harshvardhan, Shish Ram, while he claims to be a 'witness to the arrest'. In such a situation, this witness also raises doubts whether he was present at the time of arrest. PD-08 Tarachand, the complainant, himself admits that due to darkness, I cannot tell who blocked the road. I did not see anyone blocking the road. Amin, the witness of the incident spot, also goes further and says that when I reached the spot, the traffic was going on smoothly. When we went on the road, there were no stones lying there. Whereas the complainant states that the road was blocked with stones, Mohammad Amin, who accompanied him, states that the traffic was smooth and there were no stones lying at the spot, which shows the contradictory nature of the situation of the spot of both the witnesses. Most of the witnesses have stated that they did not see who threw the stones in the incident and who blocked the road. The police witnesses also clearly admit the fact in cross- examination that they do not know who were involved in causing the incident and also refuse to identify them. In such a situation, as per the aforesaid discussion, there is lack of substantial evidence to prove beyond doubt the crime alleged against the accused persons. T