Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797: whether it was an ‘honourable acquittal’ or only an extension of benefit of doubt, are aspects to be considered. State of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774: mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice. Union of India v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1: a person acquitted, giving him benefit of doubt, would not be automatically entitled for employment. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136: at cost of repetition, such an employee cannot claim appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.

Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532: by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of whether there is a conviction or acquittal recorded, employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 17 SCC 696: every individual deserves an opportunity to improve. 

Even after Avtar Singh, (2016) 8 SCC 471 Courts have enunciated different principles.

_____

The generalizations about career prospects and age leading to condonation should be avoided. The discretion must still be exercised in a manner within a reasonable interpretation of margin of manoeuvre contemplated by Legislature, in accordance with rule of law.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20860 of 2019].

_____

Also see, Ex-Constable, Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10499 of 2022] decided on 16.01.2023 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhupendra Yadav, [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 27301 of 2018] decided on 20.09.2023.

_____

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 INSC 837 (authored by one of us, Hima Kohli J), cited Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471. We may also profitably cite Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103.

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwaria, (2021) 10 SCC 136 opined, even where there was a subsequent acquittal, an employee cannot claim appointment as a matter of right having furnished false information or having indulged in suppression of material facts relating to a pending criminal case. A dent in credibility of such an employee has been mentioned. A choice/option to continue or not with such employee must be given.

The answer lies in Bhupendra Yadav.

“The standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment in a Law Enforcement Agency must always be higher and more rigourous for higher moral conduct is basic for appointment to a post as sensitive.”

– Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli, Union of India v. Shishu Pal, [Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 2024] decided on 23.07.2024.