C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

CAV 593/2024

1. As the learned Counsel for the Caveator has entered his appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

W.P.(C) 16867/2024

2. The appointment of the respondent to the post of Multi Tasking Staff¹ MTS” hereinafter in the office of the petitioners was cancelled by an order dated 2 July 2021, which reads as under:

“SUB: CANCELLATION OF APPOINTMENT Reference the following-

(i) CSF form IV dated 28.07.2018 and 01.12.2018.

(ii) FIR No. 121 dated 31.03.2014.

(iii) Court Judgement dated 04.05.2015.

2. Vide above documents it is understood that an FIR no. 121 dated 31.03.2014 Under Section 148,149,307,323,324,452 & 506 of IPC was registered against you and you are acquitted by the court of Shri. Rakesh Kadian, Judicial Megistrate 1^st Class Court, Panipat vide its order dated 04.05.2015. During recruitment process on 28.02.2018 you have signed a declaration to SSC that you have never been convicted by any court of Law and no criminal case is pending against you. Also in CSF form IV dated 28.07.2018 in Sr. No.13 you have put across and not submitted the details of the criminal case in which you are acquitted by the court of law. Whereas CSF Form IV dated 01.12.2018 you are accepted that you have been arrested and prosecuted. Where as the fact of the case was not revealed by you in the earlier CSF IV form.

3. The order dated 04.05.2015 of Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class Court, Panipat has been examined and it is observed that the Hon'ble court specifically stated that they had no other option but to acquit the accused as brought out in para-12 of the said order dated 04.05.2015 by giving a benefit of doubt. The Hon'ble Court has brought out that the complainant Smt. Reena Devi and the Prosecution witness turned hostile and even during the cross examination nothing came out of the mouth of the witnesses as well as complaint to support the case of the prosecution, as brought out in para-5 & 6 of the order dated 04.05.2015. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Court in para-10 of the said order dated 04.05.2015 that FIR was registered on the basis of complaint but the complainant did not support the prosecution story and hence was declared hostile.

4. From the above, it is evidently clear that the acquittal of Shri. Chand Singh cannot be treated as a hon'ble acquittal and not on merits and in the hand book for the disciplinary authority it has been stated as under: -

“Where the criminal case ended in acquittal only due to the reason that the prosecution witness turned hostile and there was no decision on merits a division bench of Madras High Court set aside the order of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and permitted the department to proceed with the charge memo in accordance of the law (Deputy Supdt of Police Sriperampudur Vs W.D. Sekaran, 2006 lab IC 1087”.

5. In view of the above, considering the fact that your acquittal by the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Court, Panlpat, is not on merit as the acquittal of the accused, by giving benefit of doubt. The Competent Authority felt that the department may not issue the formal appointment letter to you for the reasons mentioned above.

6. In view of the above, your Appointment as LDC in this department is hereby cancelled and your dossier was returned to SSC (NWR).

7. This has the approval of Competent Authority.

(Dr. Ch Ravinder)

AGM (Pers)

For General Manager”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, “the Tribunal” hereinafter by way of OA 1431/2022, Chand Singh v UOI

4. Before the Tribunal, the specific stand of the respondent was that his acquittal was honourable, though the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class⁵, in para 12, styled the acquittal as on “benefit of doubt”. We deem it appropriate to reproduce para 12 of the judgment of the learned JMFC, thus:

“12. In view of the above said evidence on record, when the complainant and material witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hos