Mr. N.U. Ahmed, Mr. Mohd. Aman Mirza, Ms. Afsar Bano, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of directions to the respondents for reinstatement of the petitioner in the Sahastra Seema Bal1 with continuity of service, back wages and consequential benefits. The petition further seeks quashing of memorandum dated 28.05.2021 and 24.09.2021, along with letter dated 21.02.2022, whereby the petitioner’s candidature was cancelled.

2. The brief factual matrix leading to the present petition is that the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Constable (General Duty)2 in the SSB and was issued an offer of appointment vide FHQ 1 “SSB” hereinafter 2 “Constable (GD)” hereinafter W.P.(C) 6463/2024 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:11:34 SSB, New Delhi Memorandum dated 16.03.2021, posting him to the 56th Battalion, SSB Bathnaha and directing him to report at SHQ SSB, Almora (Uttarakhand) before 20.04.2021 for joining.

3. The petitioner reported on 17.04.2021, but during documentation process, it was found that the petitioner had been imprisoned for a period of seven months and four days (i.e., from

07.04.2020 to 09.11.2020) in connection with a criminal case under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, for which he had been granted bail by the Gwalior Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the matter was sub judice before

the Sessions Court, Bhind ( Madhya Pradesh).

4. Consequently, on 28.05.2021, the Commandant, SSB Almora, issued Memorandum No. 01/Recct./SHQ-ALM/2021/5441-48 cancelling the petitioner’s appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from duty and was issued a clearance certificate dated

29.05.2021.

5. However, by communication dated 23.08.2021, the Directorate General, SSB, recalled the petitioner for service and directed him to report to the Commandant, 56th Battalion, SSB Bathnaha (Bihar) on or before 11.09.2021. The petitioner reported on 09.09.2021, however, the petitioner’s appointment was again cancelled by memorandum dated

24.09.2021, on the same ground as before.

6. Thereafter, on 21.02.2022, the Directorate General, SSB, again issued a memorandum finally cancelling the appointment of the Signature Not Verified 3 “IPC” hereinafter W.P.(C) 6463/2024 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:11:34 petitioner. However, this time, the cancellation was on the ground that the petitioner had failed to report to the SSB Almora within the stipulated time.

7. Meanwhile, the trial arising out of FIR No. 753/2019 culminated in Sessions Trial No. 121/2021, wherein by judgment dated 06.10.2023, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhind, acquitted the petitioner and all co- accused.

8. Aggrieved thereby, it is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been preferred, seeking reinstatement, with other consequential benefits.

9. Mr. N.U. Ahmed learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted honourably by the learned Sessions Court, Bhind, after a full-fledged trial, wherein it was categorically held that there existed no evidence of harassment or abetment to suicide and that no role was attributable to the petitioner. Consequently, there was neither conviction nor any finding of guilt against the petitioner which could attract disqualification of the petitioner from service.

10. It is submitted that the respondents have erroneously equated judicial custody pending trial with imprisonment upon conviction, whereas the distinction between the two is well-settled in law. Reliance is placed on UOI v. Tulsiram Patel4 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan 4 AIR 1985 SC 1416 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 6463/2024 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:11:34 Lal5, to contend that preventive judicial custody cannot be construed as penal imprisonment.

11. It is further urged by the learned Counsel that the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR initially and was added after a delay of 52 days, without any direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the petitioner with the incident.

12. The learned Counsel further submits that the impugned cancellation memorandum was effected without issuance of any show cause notice, without conducting any departmental inquiry, and without passing a speaking/reasoned order, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem. It is contended that termination without the opportunity of representation is constitutionally impermissible, as held in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India6.

13. The learned Counsel further submits that the respondents’ reliance upon the Policy of Ministry of Home Affairs7 dated 01.02.2012 which pertains to convicts or persons involved in offences of moral turpitude is wholly misconceived, since the petitioner was not convicted. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, the foundational facts required to invoke the aforesaid policy were altogether absent.

14. It is urged that the judgment of acquittal dated 06.10.2023, categorically observes that although the deceased had committed suicide, the prosecution had failed to prove any harassment or abetment 5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 AIR 1978 SC 597. 7 “MHA” hereinafter W.P.(C) 6463/2024 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:14.11.2025 17:11:34 by the accused persons, and thus, the essential ingredients of Section 306 of IPC were not established beyond reasonable doubt.

15. It is contended that once a candidate is honourably acquitted, no stigma can be legally attached to him, and that the denial of employment would amount to a civil form of double jeopardy. Reliance is placed on Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram8 and Avtar Singh v. Union of India9 to support the proposition that a person acquitted honourably cannot be denied public employment on the same grounds.

16. Per contra, Mr. Badar Mahmood, learned SPC on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner was only provisionally selected for the post of Constable(GD) in SSB through the Staff Selection Commission’s recruitment process.

17. The learned Counsel places reliance on the Force Headquarters Circular No. 8/SSB/Pers-II/2021(1)/2874-98 dated 25.03.2021 and the MHA (Police-II Division) Guidelines dated 01.02.2012, wherein paragraph 2(v) provides that where a charge sheet has been filed against a candidate in respect of offences categorized as serious or involving moral turpitude, such candidate will generally not be considered suitable for appointment in the Central Armed Police Forces10, even if such candidate is subsequently acquitted due to benefit of doubt or witnesses turning hostile.