Honble VERMA, J.–Vide letter dated 14.6.1996 the petitioner was considered for enlistment as Constable in the Executive Branch of Railway Protection Force in the scale of Rs. 825-1200. He was ordered to be medically examined and if found fit he was required to go for initial training in the Railway Protection Force Training Institute in Gujarat for a period of seven months and practical training for a period of one month etc. He was to be paid Rs. 825/- and other allowances during the period of training. He deposited a medical fee and was found fit as is clear from Annexure-5. Vide Annexure-6 dated 5.7.1996 he was informed that the training is to commence from 15.7.1996 and he was to report on 10.7.1996 BN to undergo initial training at RPF Training School Val Sad (Gujarat). Certificates in regard to his character as issued by the Station House Officer, Police Station Raini was also submitted vide Annexures 7 and 8. However, it was mentioned in Annexure-8 that the petitioner had been challaned u/S. 201 IPC. On receipt of such information vide Annexure-8 his candidature for training was cancelled vide impugned order Annexure-9 dated 13.8.1996. (2). The order dated 13.8.1996 (Annexure-9) is the order which is under challenge on the grounds mentioned in the writ petition. A reply has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner was to be given initial training of Constable as per the provisions of Rule 52 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, however, because of the petitioners having been involved in the criminal case u/S. 201 IPC his character was suspicious and, therefore, his candidature has rightly been cancelled. It is not denied that before cancelling the candidature no opportunity of any type was afforded to the petitioner. (3). The allegations made in FIR No. 45/95 of Police Station Raini are to the effect that he along with other villagers had attended the funeral ceremony of some lady who was burnt by her in-laws. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither related nor had taken any part in any event connected with the burning of the lady. The only allegation is that he was seen at the time of funeral along with many other villagers. The report u/S. 173 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither related nor had taken any part in any event connected with the burning of the lady. The only allegation is that he was seen at the time of funeral along with many other villagers. The report u/S. 173 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record. This report does not clearly mention any role played by the petitioner to enable this court to know whether he participated in the funeral procession as resident of the village or with a purpose of concealment of the incident. It is not uncommon that in the village on the death of any of the villager almost whole of the village accompanies the dead-body. Even if the petitioner was seen at the place of funeral along with other villagers that may not be considered as sufficient reason for depriving the petitioner of his civil right for getting the training for appointment to the post of Constable. Apart from the above facts, his candidature could only be cancelled if so warranted if he was convicted. Only because of the tendency of an FIR and specially in the facts mentioned in the challan u/S. 173 Cr.P.C. and the circumstances narrated therein when he had neither been related with the incident nor attributed any part having played in conceding the evidence , the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right of livelihood. Of course, if he is ultimately convicted, it shall be open to the respondents employer to take any action as permitted under law against the petitioner but at this stage the order Annexure-9 could not have been passed in the circumstances mentioned above. (4). For the discussion and reasons mentioned above, the impugned order Annexure-9 is set aside and the respondents are directed to send the petitioner on training of Constable as per the selection already made immediately in the next ensuing session of training. (5). Any observations made above shall not be construed to have been made as to effect the merits of the case pending in the FIR No. 45/95 and shall not effect the trial or merits of the above said case, if it is still pending. The petitioner shall be allowed to costs which is assessed as Rs. 1,000/- (6). The writ petition is allowed with the above said observations.