Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Prabu vs Ut Of Puducherry on 10 June, 2025
1 OA No.310/00125/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00125/2023
Dated this the 10th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
R. Prabu,
S/o Ranganathan
No.13, 3rd Cross,
Sakthi Nagar, Saram,
Puducherry. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s M. Gnanasekar
Vs
1. Union of India
represented by the Director General of Police,
Puducherry Police,
Puducherry.
2. Senior Superintendent of Police (C&I),
Puducherry.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police (Head Quarters),
Puducherry. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, GP of Puducherry
2 OA No.310/00125/2023
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"i) Set aside the Order No.2841/Estt.I(B)/A1/HG/2022 dated 14,12.2022 passed by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Police Constable with all consequential monetary and other service attendant benefits; and
ii) pass such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and
iii) Award costs of the petition."
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 met all eligibility criteria except for the age limit. Consequently, he filed OA No. 1477 of 2018 before this Tribunal, seeking age relaxation. Pursuant to the Tribunal's direction, the Police Department raised the upper age limit from 22 to 24 years. Following this, the applicant participated in both the screening and written tests. Based on the marks obtained in the written and physical tests, a select list was published on 22.03.2022, wherein the applicant's name appeared at Serial No. 24 under the Most Backward Class (MBC) category. In the Attestation Form, under the column relating to criminal cases, the applicant disclosed that he had been acquitted in 3 OA No.310/00125/2023 C.C. No. 259/2011 by the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry, on 06.04.2022. He was charged under Sections 324 and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and was arrayed as A-4. The Court held that there was no acceptable evidence proving that A-1 to A-4 had assaulted the prosecution witnesses. As the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the applicant was acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., receiving the benefit of doubt. Despite the acquittal, the respondents withheld his appointment, citing that the acquittal was not "honourable." The applicant submitted a representation dated 06.10.2022.
However, the 2nd respondent, relying on input from the Law Department, informed him that his provisional selection was cancelled due to the nature of the acquittal. 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, S. Jayakumar (acquitted in C.C. No. 246/2018 by the Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Puducherry on 12.04.2022), S. Sathish (acquitted in C.C. No. 118/2021 by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Puducherry on 31.03.2022), and D. Balalgurunathan (acquitted in C.C. No. 187/2022 by the Judicial Magistrate IV (FAC), Puducherry on 11.04.2022) were all acquitted under 4 OA No.310/00125/2023 Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Despite being accused in criminal cases similar in nature to that of the applicant, these individuals were granted appointments by order dated 20.07.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent. 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 1st 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 5 OA No.310/00125/2023 statutory expression under the Code of Criminal Procedure and is unknown to criminal jurisprudence. The criminal justice system recognizes only two outcomes conviction or acquittal. In the present case, the learned Judicial Magistrate specifically recorded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges and the evidence was disbelieved. Therefore, the acquittal, notwithstanding the use of the term "benefit of doubt," must be considered as a full and honourable acquittal in substance.
6. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant did not suppress any material fact regarding his involvement in the criminal case. On the contrary, he truthfully disclosed the details of the case and his acquittal in the relevant column of the Attestation Form.
7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on the following judgments and urged for allowing the OA:
(i) Judgment dated 05.06.2023 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of The Director General of Police, TN Police Department & another Vs K. Indhu Kumar, Order dated 05.06.2023 in WA (MD) No.938 & 939 of 2020 & Batch of cases.6 OA No.310/00125/2023
(ii) Judgment, dated 21.06.2017 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in RA.No.114 & 115 of 2015 in WP No.1196 & 1221 of 2015
8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was provisionally selected under the Most Backward Class (MBC) category (Sl. No. 24) in the male category. Pursuant to his selection, he was issued a call letter to appear for original certificate verification, medical examination, and submission of forms for verification of character and antecedents. The applicant appeared for certificate verification, submitted the requisite original documents, and was found medically fit. All provisionally selected candidates, including the applicant, were issued three copies of the Attestation Form with instructions to submit the duly filled forms during document verification. The applicant submitted the completed forms, which were subsequently forwarded to the Superintendent of Police (Special Branch) for character and antecedent verification.
9. Upon scrutiny of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Special Branch), it was revealed that 18 out of 390 candidates, including the applicant, were found to have been involved in criminal, accident, or preventive measure cases. Specifically, the applicant was 7 OA No.310/00125/2023 reported to have been involved in Cr. No. 51/2011 registered under Sections 324 and 506(i) read with Section 34 IPC at the Orleanpet Police Station, Puducherry. Although the applicant was later acquitted in the said case, the matter required further consideration.
10. In order to finalize the candidature of the 18 candidates, including the applicant, the matter was placed before the Screening Committee. At its meeting held on 22.06.2022, the Committee decided to refer the matter to the Law Department, Government of Puducherry, for legal opinion. The Law Department opined that in view of the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an acquittal based on benefit of doubt, especially in cases where witnesses have turned hostile, cannot be construed as an "honourable acquittal."
11. The learned counsel further submitted that based on the opinion of the Law Department, the Screening Committee recommended the cancellation of the provisional selection of all 18 candidates, including the applicant.Consequently, the cancellation of the applicant's provisional selection was communicated to him by order dated 14.12.2022. 8 OA No.310/00125/2023
12. By referring to the following decisions, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA:
(i) Judgment,dated 02.07.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Another Vs Mehar Singh & Another, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685.
(ii) Judgment, dated 05.06.2023 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of The Director General of Police, TN Police Department & another Vs K. Indhu Kumar, in WA (MD) No.938 & 939 of 2020 & Batch of cases.
13. We have considered the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned counsel on both the sides, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. We have also perused the written submissions, and the judgments relied upon by the respective parties.
14. Before delving into the merits of the case, we consider it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department & Another v. K. Indhu Kumar, which has been relied upon by both parties. This judgment takes into account various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Notably, the High Court has examined the issue under similar 9 OA No.310/00125/2023 circumstances, and we hereby extract the relevant portion of the said judgment:
"12. Suppression of involvement in a criminal case: The suppression of involvement in a criminal case will clearly disentitle a candidate for the post for which he has applied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Judgement reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 (Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh) in Paragraph No.34 has held as follows:
"34.The respondents are trying to draw mileage from the fact that in their application and/or attestation form they have disclosed their involvement in a criminal case. We do not see how this fact improves their case. Disclosure of these facts in the application/attestation form is an essential requirement. An aspirant is expected to state these facts honestly. Honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of the police force. The respondents should not, therefore, expect to score any brownie points because of this disclosure. Besides, this has no relevance to the point in issue. It bears repetition to state that while deciding whether a person against whom a criminal case was registered and who was later acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature of the offence, the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt because the witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future. This decision, in our opinion, can only be taken by the Screening Committee created for that purpose by the Delhi Police. If the Screening Committee's decision is not mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations, then, it cannot be questioned.10 OA No.310/00125/2023
13.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2016) 8 SCC 171 (Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others) in Paragraph No.38.4 has held as follows:
"38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filing of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted."
14.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2012) 8 SCC Page 748 (Jainendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home and others), Paragraph No.29.5, 29.6 and 29.7 has held as follows:
"29.5. The purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character /antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
29.6. The person who suppressed the material information and / or gives a false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.
29.7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted."
15.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2021) 10 SCC Page 136 (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Anil Kanwariya) in Paragraph No.14 has held as follows:
"14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The 11 OA No.310/00125/2023 question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right."
16.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgement reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1300 (Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and others) in Paragraph No.90(c)(d) have held as follows:
90....
(c).The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
(d)The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to 12 OA No.310/00125/2023 condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided".
17.In view of the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that where a candidate had knowledge about his involvement in the criminal case, but he had suppressed the same either at the time of application or at the time of police verification, he is not entitled to get an appointment. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgement reported in (2016) 8 SCC Page 471 (Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others ) in Paragraph No.38.4.1 has held that if the criminal case in which the candidate is involved is of trivial in nature, the employer may, in his discretion, can ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. In Paragraph 38.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the pendency of the criminal case was not informed to the candidate at the time of filing the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. In Paragraph 38.11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
18.Therefore, from the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that once the candidate is having knowledge about his involvement in a criminal case (not being of trivial in nature) had suppressed the same at the time of filing of an application, he is not entitled to seek any appointment. But in cases where the information was not furnished in the application form relating to an offence (not being trivial in nature), the employer in his discretion is entitled to consider his candidature by considering his character and past antecedents.
19. In the light of the above said deliberations, the preposition of law could be summarized as follows:
(a) In case of honourable acquittal, discharge, case closed as mistake of fact, quashing of F.I.R/Charge Sheet before the date of police verification, the same should be considered in favour of the candidate in the current selection itself.13 OA No.310/00125/2023
(b) Where the candidate has been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt or hostility of witnesses (before the date of police verification), that would not confer any right upon the candidate to claim appointment as a matter of right. It is for the employer to consider the suitability of the candidate based upon his conduct and antecedents only if the offences are trivial in nature.
(c). Where the criminal case has been quashed (before police verification) on the basis of a compromise and the offence is of trivial in nature, the same can be considered in favour of the candidate in the current selection itself. However, if the offence involved is not of a trivial in nature, the same cannot be considered for appointment.
(d). Where a candidate having knowledge about his involvement in a criminal case had suppressed the same in his application and the said offence is not trivial in nature, he is not entitled to seek any appointment. On the other hand, in cases of trivial offences, without knowledge about his involvement or after having knowledge had suppressed his involvement, the employer in his discretion is entitled to consider the candidature by considering his character and past antecedents.
(e). Where the candidate is involved in petty/trivial cases like family dispute or dispute with neighbours or shouting of slogans or traffic offence where fine was imposed, the same can be considered to be offence of trivial/petty in nature. However, the offence against women, children or under NDPS Act should never be considered to be an offence of trivial in nature.
15. Following the above said decision cited supra,the Hon'ble Madras High Court considered similar issue in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department Vs S. Govindaraj in WA. No. 2746 of 2018. Vide 14 OA No.310/00125/2023 its judgment dated 16.06.2023, the court came to a concussion, if the applicant is honourable acquitted, he should be considered for appointment to the post. The relevant portions of the judgment are extracted as hereunder:
"7. The consequent issue to be addressed in this case, as to whether the honourable acquittal could disqualify the petitioner from the appointment has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377. The relevant observation is extracted below;
"19. Further, an acquittal of the appellant is an "honourable"
acquittal in every sense and purpose. Therefore, the appellant should not be deprived from being appointed to the post, in the public employment, by declaring him as unsuitable to the post even though he was honourably acquitted in the criminal case registered against him."
xxxxxxxx
7. In view of the above findings and the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to complete the selection process and issue suitable appointment order to the petitioner in the post of Second Grade Constable, subject to any other qualification/tests that may have to be satisfied within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. In the present case, though the trial Court had acquitted the respondent on benefit of doubt, the learned Single Judge by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inspector General of Police Vs. S Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598] held that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
xxxxxxxx 15 OA No.310/00125/2023
10. The case on hand is squarely covered by the proposition laid down in Para 19 (a) of the Division Bench decision cited supra (WA No.938 & 939 of 2020). It is clear from the records that the criminal case registered against the respondent/writ petitioner had ended in honourable acquittal. The Writ Court has rightly considered these aspects in proper perspective and directed the department to complete the selection process and issue suitable appointment order to the writ petitioner."
16. In its recent judgment dated 22.02.2024 in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether the non-disclosure of a criminal case (which had culminated in an acquittal) in the verification form is fatal for the candidate's employment. The Court authoritatively held that such non-disclosure, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be construed as fatal to the appellant's claim. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below:
30. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non-
disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.
Relief:
31. For the reasons set out hereinabove, the appeal is 16 OA No.310/00125/2023 allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench dated 29.10.2010 in Special Appeal No. 896/2005 are set aside. The order of 12.04.2005 of the third respondent, Commandant 27th Battalion, PAC, Sitapur is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant in service on the post of Constable for which he was selected, pursuant to his participation in reference to the Recruitment Notification dated 20.01.2004. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force. At the same time, we direct that the appellant will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits.
Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs". From the above we can conclude, that in recruitment of police constable Hon'ble Courts have come to conclusion that honourable acquittal is not fatal and the applicant can be considered, even though the applicant has not mentioned such details in the Attestation Form.
17. Now we would like to compare the offence committed by the applicant and identically placed who committed similar offence like the applicant but were appointed by the respondents. Applicant:
11 2687 R. Prabu, @ Suriya Cr.No.51/20 Declared in The Ranganathan 11 U/s 324, the Commission 506(i) IPC Attestation er decided to No.99, Mariamman Koil r/w 34 IPC Form refer the Street, dated case to Law Kundu Palayam, 02.02.2011 Department of Olearnpet for further 17 OA No.310/00125/2023 Thanttanchavady Post PS, opinion as Puducherry. the Court Puducherry-605013 The case observed was that this acquitted by candidate the Hon'ble and other JM-II Court accused Puducherry persons were vide CC not found No.259/201 guilty and 1 dated acquitted by 06.05.2013. giving the benefit of (Judgement copy doubt.
enclosed) Comparison with similarly Placed Persons, who were appointed by the respondents 8 1877 N. Sathish @ Kathavarayan, Cr.No.212/20 Declared in The Candidate 12 u/s the Attestation along with Navaneedan N. 324,323,506(I Form Accused No.27, Sathiyamoorthy I) r/w 34 IPC persons were Street, North Bharathipuram, dated acquitted by Shanmugapuram, 28.05.2012 of the Hon'ble D' Nagar P.S. JM-I, Puducherry-605009. The case was Puducherry, acquitted by on the ground the Hon'ble that the JM-I Court, accused Puducherry persons are vide CC found not No.114/2015 guilty of the dated offence.
29.01.2016. Hence, the
Committee
recommends
to consider
him for
appointment.
9 1517 Sathish. S Cr.No.198/20 Declared in The Candidate
16 U/s 380 the Attestation along with
Sankar S
r/w 34 IPC Form accused
No.11, Mariamman Koil and 3 of person
Street, PDPP Act including this
Periyapet. Villianur, dated were acquitted
17.08.2016 of by the Hon'ble
Puducherry 605 110. Villianur PS. JM- III,
Puducherry. Puducherry,
The case was on the ground
acquitted by that the
18 OA No.310/00125/2023
the Hon'ble charges were
JM-III Court not proved
Puducherry beyond doubts
vide by the
C.C.No.118/2 Prosecution
021 dated side by
31.03.2022. recording that
(Judgement the
copy complainant
enclosed) the Deputy
Tahsildar
lodged the
complaint
only on
suspicion and
that there is
no eye
witness.
Hence the
Committee
recommends
to consider
him for
appointment.
13 2996 Jayakumar Sivabalan @ Cr.No.40/201 Declared in The candidate
Jayabalan, 8 U/s 323. the Attestation along with the 294(b), Form accused No.20, Kulathumettu Street, 506(ii) r/w 34 persons were Embalam and Post, IPC dated acquitted by Puducherry 605 106. 19.03.2018 of the Hon'ble Bahour PS. JM-IV, The case was Puducherry, acquitted by on the ground the Hon'ble that the JM-IV Court, charges were vide not proved CCNo.246/20 beyond doubts 18 dated by the 12.04.2022 Prosecution side as the complainant himself could not identify the accused person.
Hence, the
committee
recommends
to consider
him for
appointment.
15 PUD Balagurunathan, Cr.No.16/201 Declared in The case
19 OA No.310/00125/2023
-1-7977 S/o. Devanathan, 9, u/s 341, the Attestation against this
323, 506(ii) Form candidate and
No.2, Mariamman Koil
r/w 34 IPC other accused
Street, Nathamedu,
dated persons was
Sadakulam, Chellencherry
13.03.2019 of closed by
Post, Puducherry 605 106.
Mangalam compounding
PS. The case on the request
was closed as of the
compounded complainant
u/s 320 Cr.P.C by Hon'ble
and the JM-IV,
accused was Puducherry,
discharged by Hence, the
the Hon'ble Committee
JM-IV Court, recommends
vide to consider
CCNo.187/20 him for
22 dated appointment.
11.04.2022
18. Apart from the tabular column cited above, based on the opinion of the Law Department, we identified one Mr. Pavithran, who is similarly placed as the applicant. He had also failed to disclose a pending criminal case in his Attestation Form, yet was appointed. Mr. Pavithran had been accused of staging a protest and obstructing public transport in front of the Collector's office on behalf of a political party. His appointment was made on the grounds that he was not found guilty and was acquitted by the criminal court. In that case, too, two key witnesses turned hostile.
19. Similarly, one Mr. Kathavarayan was accused of assaulting the complainant and issuing threats of dire consequences. He was also appointed on the grounds of acquittal, as he was not found guilty by the criminal court. In his case as well, the witnesses turned hostile. 20 OA No.310/00125/2023
20. In another instance, one Mr. Karthick was accused of threatening members of the public with a knife. He was appointed on similar grounds, acquittal by the criminal court due to lack of evidence, as the witnesses in his case had also turned hostile.
21. We find it perplexing that, in cases where individuals similarly placed as the applicant were acquitted by the criminal court through what is termed as "honourable acquittal," a different approach has been adopted in the applicant's case. The rationale behind such a divergent stance by the respondents remains unclear to us.
22. While the rejection of the applicant's candidature solely on the ground that the acquittal was merely an honourable acquittal appears inconsistent and discriminatory. It is particularly noteworthy that even individuals who have admitted to the offence and subsequently compounded it have been appointed.
23. In the above circumstances, we find there is force in the arguments of the applicant. We therefore in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned order, dated 25.08.2022 passed in respect of the applicant, and remit the issue back to the file of the respondents, to reconsider his case afresh, in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court 21 OA No.310/00125/2023 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the decision of the Screening Committee of offering appointments on acquittal to similarly placed persons discussed supra in the order and pass a well-reasoned speaking order. We further direct that such exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt copy of this order.
24. With the above direction, the OA is disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs..
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
10. 06.2025
mas