CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated the 12^th day of September, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)

B.Harish, No.15, 3^rd Cross Street, Pudhu Nagar, Nonanguppam, Puducherry 605007. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s P.Suresh Vs

1. The Director General of Police, Puducherry. 605 001

2. The Senior Superintendent of Police (C&I), Puducherry. 605 001

3. The Superintendent of Police (Head Quarters), Puducherry. 605 001 .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“When the similar candidates who issued an offer of appointment for the post of Police Constable and also undergoing training in Police Training School, Gorimedu, Puducherry, the very same anology has also to be adopted to the applicant's case and issue an offer of appointment forthwith and to quash the impugned order issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police (C&I), Puducherry vide order No.2841/Estt.I(B)/A1/HG/2022 dated 14.12.2022.”

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The applicant submits that the respondents conducted recruitment for the post of Police Constable in the Puducherry Police Department. He participated in the selection process and passed in both the Written as well as the Ground (Physical) tests and was provisionally selected for the said post on 22.03.2022 vide Sl.No.16, Roll No.1486 under MBC category. The Superintendent of Police (HQ) has sent the proposal to the Special Branch Police Unit for verification of character and Antecedent through above said unit in terms of the Service Rules stating in his report that the applicant was involved in a Criminal case in Crime No.125/2017 under Sections 294 (b), 324, 506(ii) IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The contention of the applicant is that the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry, on 04.04.2022 after considering the entire case and evidence and other circumstances, passed orders holding that the accused are released under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C.1973. The applicant made a representation dated 06.10.2022 along with the acquittal order before the Superintendent of Police (HQ). Despite the acquittal, the respondents vide impugned order dated 14.12.2022 cancelled his provisional selection, citing that the acquittal was not "honourable." Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant has filed the present OA.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that in the same recruitment process, certain similarly situated candidates namely, F.Prakash (acquitted in STC No.626/2019), S. Sathish (acquitted in C.C. No. 118/2021), and B.Harish (acquitted in C.C. No. 652/2019) were granted appointments by order dated 20.07.2022. However, in the case of the applicant, the respondents have taken a different approach. His provisional selection was cancelled by order dated 14.12.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent, thereby subjecting him to discriminatory treatment without just cause or justification.

4. The learned counsel further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that authorities, particularly selection committees, are required to apply their minds while considering appointments. In the present case, the respondents have acted mechanically and solely on the advice of the Law Department of Puducherry, adopting a favourable standard for certain candidates while applying a different and adverse standard to the applicant, despite the fact that all individuals were similarly placed. No reasons have been assigned for this differential treatment, warranting the interference of this Hon’ble Tribunal.

5. It is also submitted that the term "honourable acquittal" is not a statutory expression under the Code of Criminal Procedure and is unknown to criminal jurisprudence. The criminal justice system recognizes only two outcomes conviction o