Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner being a candidate aspiring to join Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) challenging the withdrawal notice of the petitioner’s Offer of Appointment stating that he was “unsuitable for employment in CISF” despite the petitioner having informed the respondents that vide the Judgment dated 10-08-2023, he was acquitted in the aforementioned case as the prosecution had completely failed to prove the charges against him. A division bench of Navil Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., set aside the impugned notice dated 30-11-2024 and directed the respondents to re-instate the petitioner to the post of Constable (GD), the post he was selected for, and allow him to complete his training with the next batch, if the training of the current batch has already been completed.
The petitioner, an aspiring candidate for the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), applied for the post of Constable/General Duty (GD) in response to a recruitment advertisement issued in July 2021. He successfully cleared all recruitment stages, including the written examination on 09-12-2021, the physical test on 23-05-2022, and the medical examination on 27-09-2022, where he was declared fit. On 15-11-2022, he received an Offer of Appointment for the post. Subsequently, on 28-12-2022, he reported to the Regional Training Centre (RTC), Behror, Rajasthan, to commence his training.
During the training, the petitioner, along with other candidates, was directed to disclose any pending criminal cases against him. The petitioner truthfully disclosed an FIR registered on 05-05-2021, at Police Station Mali, under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The case was pending adjudication at that time. Upon this disclosure, the matter was referred to the Standing Screening Committee for further consideration.
The petitioner was later acquitted of all charges on 10-08-2023, by the Special Judge, Excise-II, Aurangabad, Bihar, who found that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations. Despite this acquittal, the respondents withdrew his Offer of Appointment on 30-11-2024, citing unsuitability for employment in CISF. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the instant petition challenging the withdrawal of his appointment on grounds of violation principles of natural justice, as he was not afforded an opportunity to present his case before the Standing Screening Committee.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents violated the principles of natural justice by referring the case of the petitioner to the Standing Screening Committee, without affording him an opportunity of being heard. It emphasized that the acquittal was “honourable” and highlighted that the Special Judge had explicitly recorded that the prosecution witnesses failed to prove the charges. The petitioner further argued that the offense under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, did not involve moral turpitude, making the respondents’ reliance on the pending case arbitrary and unjustified.
On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner’s selection was provisional and subject to conditions outlined in the agreement signed at the time of training. They argued that the case fell under the category of serious offenses, warranting consideration by the Standing Screening Committee. The respondents further stated that the petitioner was informed of the decision to withdraw his appointment, and the process adhered to the Ministry of Home Affairs Guidelines.
The Court carefully examined the submissions, emphasizing the petitioner’s transparent disclosure of the pending case during his training. The Court noted that the petitioner had been acquitted prior to the issuance of the withdrawal letter and that the acquittal was characterized as “honourable.” The Court reiterated that an “honourable acquittal” negates the stigma attached to criminal allegations, especially when the charges lack substantial evidence.
The Court criticized the respondents for mechanically and arbitrarily withdrawing the petitioner’s appointment, ignoring the settled principle of law that an acquittal effectively nullifies the implications of a criminal case for employment purposes. The Court held that the petitioner’s acquittal removed any grounds for labeling him unsuitable for the post.
The Court quashed the impugned Letter dated 30-11-2024 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Constable (GD). It further instructed the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his training with the next available batch if his original batch had already completed theirs. The Court clarified that the petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits, including seniority at par with his batchmates, but would not receive salary for the period he was not employed.
[Ranjan Kumar v Union of India, W.P.(C) 16794/2024, decided on 19-12-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Shalinder Kaur
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sahil Mongia, Ms. Sanjana Samor and Mr. Yash Yadav, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Harsh Kumar, Adv. with Mr. A.M. Balasaheb, AC, CISF
