Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of his removal from service as contained in Annexure 7. This order, issued by the Supdt, of Police, Muzaffarpur, the 1st respondent, states that the petitioners appointment as constable was subject to verification regarding his satisfactory antecedents. On enquiry, however, it was found that the petitioner was accused in Sehar P. S. Case No.11 (2)80 for various offences including one under Sec.380 of the Indian Penal Code and in Sahar P. S. Case no.168/83 for a number of offences including those under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He was accordingly removed from service. The other impugned orders are those passed by the Superior officers on appeal and representations filed by the petitioner against the order of his removal from service. This culminated in the order dated 29-7-1989 (contained in Annexure 4) passed by the Director General of Police, respondent No.5 who finally confirmed the petitioners removal from service. 2. The facts are few and without controversy. By communication dated 5-5-1985 a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-5, the petitioner was informed that he had been selected for appointment on the temporary post of constable and advising him to present himself for a medical check up at the New Police line, Muzaffarpur. It was clearly stated in this communication that on being medically found fit, he will be appointed on purely them-porary basis and in case of any adverse report re lating to his antecedents this appointment letter dated 23-5-1985, a copy whereof is contained in annexure-6 whereby the petitioner was appointed as constable on a purely temporary basis. The appointment letter also reiterated that the appointment was subject to the condition that the same would be cancelled without assingning any reason in case any adverse report was received on verification of this antecedents. 3. By notice dated 20-1-1986, the petitioner was informed that on enquiry it came to light that in Sahar P. S. Case Nos.11 (2)80 and 168/83 the police had submitted charge sheets naming the petitioner as one of the accused. His appointment being subject to the condition of having satisfactory antecedents, the petitioner was required to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. It is stated that the petitioner filed a show cause but a copy of it has not been enclosed with the writ petition. His appointment being subject to the condition of having satisfactory antecedents, the petitioner was required to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. It is stated that the petitioner filed a show cause but a copy of it has not been enclosed with the writ petition. This was followed by the order of removal from service a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-7. As indicated above, the removal order states that the petitioners appointment was subject to a satisfactory verification of his antecedents. An enquiry, however, revealed that he was charge sheeted in sahar P. S. Case Nos.11 (2)80 and 168/83. He was accordingly being removed from service. On appeal and representations this order was confirmed by the hierarchy of the superior officers, namely, Dy. Inspector General of Police, respondent No.3 vide order dated 14-11-1987 (Annexure-2) ; Regional inspector General of Police, respondent No.4 vide order dated 26-8-1988 (Annexure-3) ; and finally by the Director General of Police, respondent No.5 vide his order dated 29-7-1989 (Annexure-4 ). 4. It is to be noted that by the time, the petitioners appeal came for consideration before respondent No.5 he had been acquitted in the two criminal cases. In Sahar P. S. Case No.168/83 in which he was charged under Sec.302 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code, he was acquitted by the trial court and in Sahar P. S. Case No.11 (2)80 in which he was charged in several sections including Sec.380 of the Indian Penal code, he was convicted by the trial court but acquitted by the appellante court. 5. Considering this aspect of the matter, respondent No.5 observed that both the criminal cases had their genesis in family feuds and in both the cases the petitioner has been acquitted. He further stated that although the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the petitioner but from the judgment in the murder case it is apparent that at the time of the murder, the petitioner was also present at the place of occurrence and this to his mind makes the petitioners antecedents a suspect and not worthy of being a member of the police force. He accordingly found no reason to interfere with the order of his removal from service. 6. I may note at this stage that the judgments of acquittal in the two cases were not enclosed with the writ petition. He accordingly found no reason to interfere with the order of his removal from service. 6. I may note at this stage that the judgments of acquittal in the two cases were not enclosed with the writ petition. In course of hearing of the case, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the copies of the two judgments for the perusal of the court. I have looked into the two judgments and direct that thess be kept on the records of this case. From the (appellate) judgment dated 31-7-1987 passed in Criminal Appeal No.142 of 1985 (arising) out of Sahar P. S. Cas: No.11 (2)80 it appears that all the prosecution witnesses had the common title rai. Coupled with this the non exmination of the I. O. and the doctorled the appellate courts to the opinion that the conviction of the accused persons was not justified and they deserved acquittal. From the judgment and order dated 12-4-1989 passed in Sessions Trial No.165/1984 (arising out of Sahar P. S. Case No.168/1983)it appears that in this Case 20 accused persons including the present petitioner were put up on trial. The factum of murder and causing injuries to some other persons was established but conviction was brought home only against four accused and the rest including the petitioner were acquitted. As regards the petitioner, although the prosecution in that case established his armed presence along with others at the place of occurrence, it failed to connect them with any unlawful act committed by them nor could it prove that they were members of any unlawful assembly and hence the acquittal of the petitioner along with some others. 7. Mr. Genesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, did not question the right of the respondent authorities to remove the petitioner from service in case his antecedents could be validly said to be unsatisfactory, that being a condition of the appointment. He, however, assailed as arbitrary and unsustainable the action of the respondents in dubbing the petitioners antecedents as unsatisfactory merely on the basis of his having been named as accused in two criminal cases several years earlier than his selection and appointment. Mr. Singh submitted that the words past character should be the English enquivalent of the expression purv Charitra used in the selection and appointment letters as contained in Annexures-5 and 6. Mr. Singh submitted that the words past character should be the English enquivalent of the expression purv Charitra used in the selection and appointment letters as contained in Annexures-5 and 6. Then, on the basis of the dictionary meanings of the word character, he sought to argue that the word implied some kind of continuance behaviour, incorrigibility or a trait. Following this line of argument he further submitted that having been named as accused in two cases would mean nothing in judging the past character of the petitioner and this fact alone was wholly unsufficient to reflect his character. He further argued that the authorities acted quite unreasonably and arbitrarily in holding his past antecedents to be unsatisfactory merely on the basis of two criminal cases in which he was made an accused. In support of this contention, Mr. Singh has relied upon a decision in the case of D. Rama subba Ready V/s. P. K. S. Rama Das and another, 1970 Cr. Law Journal 83 and the definition of the word character as given in Law Lexicon, Volume 1 the aforesaid decision of a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High court describes character as follows : "character" is an expression of very vide import which takes in all the traits, special and particular qualities impressed by nature or habit which serve as an index to the essential intrinsic nature of a person. "character" also includes reputation, but "character" and "reputation" are not synonymous. " This is in the context of Exception 9 to Sec.499 of the Indian Penal code in a prosecution for defamation. I do not see how the afore-quoted observation helps Mr. Singh. 8 Mr. Singh went on to take the extreme position that even his conviction in the aforesaid two criminal cases would not have been of much consequence inasmuch as even though convicted of the offences, two isolated incidents five years and two years prior to his appointment would not have been an index of his character and on the basis of those convictions alone his character could not have been assessed. 9. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh which tends to confine the meaning and content of the word "character" into a strait jacket in complete disregard of the different contexts in which the word may be used. 9. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh which tends to confine the meaning and content of the word "character" into a strait jacket in complete disregard of the different contexts in which the word may be used. An employer while employing a person would be perfectly justified in being thoroughly satisfied about his character and in oral strength and for assessing the same, he would be entitled to look into and investigate the events in the past life of the prospective employee. It is only the events in the past life of a person that can form the material for the employer to form an opinion about his character and moral strength. For a sociologist or a psychologist one or two events in the past life of a person may not be of much significance in assessing that persons character but to an employer even a single event in the past life of a prospective employee may render him unsuitable for the job. An employers point of view is totally different from a Sociologist or Psychologist. It is also elementary and does not require much eloboration that the degree of moral strength required of a prospective candidate for any employment cannot be judged in a rigid and unflexible manner and its extent would very according to the nature of employment. The cleanliness and the degree of uprightness required would not be the same for the post of Orderly, Cashier of a bank or the Personal Secretary of the chief Justice of a High Court who by the nature of employment may be required to handle highly confidential, sensitive and delicate matters. It is also true that it is for the employer who is the best judge of the nature of the employment should be left free to determine the extent of moral strength required from a candidate for the job and unless such a determination travels into realm of arbitrariness the High Court would refrain from interfering and would surely not substitute its own views for that of the employer concerned if the views of the later are within reasonable limits. 10. 10. In the instant case, I do not find that the respondent No.5 acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in taking into consideration the petitioners implication in two criminal cases and arriving at his decision that he was not fit for a job in the police. 11. This matter can be looked from another angle also. Had this matter come to light at the time of selection and the issuance of the appointment letter and had the authorities on that basis refused to offer this appointment to the petitioner, I think the could not have been called unjustified. This being the position, for the same reasons, I think the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. I, thus, find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs in the facts and the circumstances of this case. Application dismissed.