Judgment : Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions and therefore, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. In the nature of the issues which have been raised for consideration and in the nature of the submissions made, I do not think it is necessary to undertake a detailed appraisal of the facts in each one of these cases. But, for the sake of convenience, I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.33572/2007. 2. The petitioner, on retirement from the Army, registered his name in the Employment Exchange. He was selected for appointment to the post of Police Constable Driver on the basis of advice by the third respondent and was called for medical examination. He reported for the same. But subsequently, he came to know that other persons, who attended the medical examination, were issued orders of appointment, but he was not included therein. He came to know that his non inclusion is on account of the pendency of C.C.No.143/2007 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I Kochi, involving offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC read with Section 181 of the M.V.Act Petitioner contends that mere pendency of the criminal case should not stand in the way of the petitioner being offered appointment. He has therefore, approached this Court praying for a direction that he should be sent for training as Police Constable pursuant to Ext.P1, which is the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police provisionally selecting him for appointment to the post of Driver PC, subject to verification of character and antecedents. An interim order was passed by this Court on 111.2007, requiring the petitioner to be sent for training subject to the conditions prescribed therein. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents pointing out that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.143/2007 and this was considered by the Government as making him unfit for appointment in Government service. “Appointing an individual, who is involved in a criminal case or who has a criminal background, will affect the morale of the police force.” Petitioner is undergoing training pursuant to the interim order of this Court. 4. Similar facts are involved in the other cases also. The variation is in relation to the post or the nature of the offences charged against those petitioners. 4. Similar facts are involved in the other cases also. The variation is in relation to the post or the nature of the offences charged against those petitioners. in all these cases, the stand taken by the Government is to the effect that the petitioners have not been deputed for training because of the pendency of the criminal case in question. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Smt. Waheeda Babu, Mr. Bechu Kurian Thomas, Mr. Kaliswaram Raj, Mr. Mohanlal, Mr. Anilkumar, Mr. T.A. Shaji, Mr. Pirappancode Sudheer and the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr. Nandakumar. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that mere pendency of the criminal cases, as such, should not be treated as a blemish on the character and antecedents of any person, who is otherwise fit for appointment to a post in the Civil Services. The criminal cases could be registered for oblique reasons. A person may find himself as an accused in a criminal case out of political vendetta or out of sheer, error committed by the investigating agency. He could also find himself as an accused on account of pure and simple domestic strife, a typical illustration of which could be found in Writ Petition No.5131/2007, where the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in an FIR which came to be registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the sister-in-law of the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC against her husband and mother-in-law, as accused Nos.1 and 2. The fact that the person, who is arrayed as an accused in a criminal case, which could even be, at the stage of investigation, casts no reflection on the character or antecedents of the person concerned. In all probabilities, he might be acquitted, but if the pendency of the criminal case is taken as a reason to deny him an appointment, it could amount to an action on the part of the Government, which is violative of his rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is part of the jurisprudence of this country, that a person is to be presumed as innocent until otherwise proved and such presumption is to be extended to cases where the person is merely arrayed as an accused in a criminal case. It is part of the jurisprudence of this country, that a person is to be presumed as innocent until otherwise proved and such presumption is to be extended to cases where the person is merely arrayed as an accused in a criminal case. Therefore, though the Government is entitled to verify the character and antecedents of an aspirant for a Government post, mere pendency of a criminal case should be treated as an irrelevant factor and should not influence the mind of the Government in considering whether such a person is qualified for such service. 7. Mr. Nandakumar, learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the appointing authority under the Kerala State Subordinate Services Rules is vested with the power or even an obligation to satisfy itself with the character and antecedents of a prospective Government servant such as to qualify him for such service. He emphasizes on the words “such services”. The character and antecedents are traits which are peculiar to an individual and assessment of the same must be qua the service in question. Attributes required of a Sub Inspector of police would be different from the attributes required of Lower Division Typists. But, in all these cases, Government has not only the power but the obligation to satisfy itself with the character and antecedents of the person concerned qua such service. This is all what the Government proposed to do in the present case. According to Mr. Nandakumar, Government is entitled to do so. .8. The power of the Government to enter upon a satisfaction as regards the character and antecedents of a candidate is contained in Rule 10 b(iii) of K.S. & S.S.R. 1958, which reads as follows:- .The State Government are satisfied that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service: Provided that, before the Government are satisfied of the character and antecedents of a person selected/advised for appointment by direct recruitment, the Appointing Authority may appoint him/her temporarily under clause (i) of sub-rule (a) of rule 9 of these rules subject to the condition that his/her appointment shall be terminated without notice if Government are not satisfied of his/her character and antecedents on subsequent verification and that he/she shall be eligible for appointment in regular service in accordance with the Rules only if his/her character and antecedents are found satisfactory on subsequent verification. .9. .9. What are the contours of the power that the Government exercises under Rule 10 b(iii). Is it a case where the Government ie, the appointing authority need only say that it is not satisfied with the character and antecedents of the candidate. Of course, if the Government is satisfied, then no reasons need be afforded in that regard. But, if the Government is not satisfied, then, should the existence of the satisfaction or otherwise be treated as a culmination of the decision arrived at by the Government in that regard? If what is involved is therefore, a decision making process of the Government, then it follows as logical consequence that reasons must be afforded by the .Government. In all cases where the Government is of the opinion that it is not satisfied that the character and antecedent of a candidate are such as to qualify him for “such service”, obviously the reasons which persuaded the Government from affirming the character and antecedents of the candidate for the purpose of Rule 10 b(iii), will have to be spelt out in an order. In another words, a decision taken by the Government as regards the satisfaction or the absence of satisfaction that the character and antecedents of a candidate are such as to qualify him for “such service”, if subjected to judicial review will have to satisfy the ingredients of a decision taken by an Administrative Authority (or statutory Authority) exercising its powers in an area which is conditioned by the provisions of the statute. 10. Once, therefore, the contours of the power which is in the nature of obligation is identified, as I have attempted to do, then it would only be logical to conclude that there is in fact a power coupled with an obligation, conferred on the Government under Rule 10 b(iii), to satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of a candidate are such as to “qualify him for such service.” 11. The aspect on which much of the arguments have been advanced turns on the question as to whether the power exercised by the Government under Rule 10 b(iii) shall, under any circumstances, refer to the pendency of a criminal case against the candidate in question. The aspect on which much of the arguments have been advanced turns on the question as to whether the power exercised by the Government under Rule 10 b(iii) shall, under any circumstances, refer to the pendency of a criminal case against the candidate in question. If it is accepted that mere pendency of a criminal case as such casts no reflection on the character and antecedents of any person, then to take into account the pendency of a criminal case as such, in the course of exercise of power under Rule 10 b(iii) would therefore, fall foul of the time tested principle that any decision taken by a Statutory Authority should not be influenced by an extraneous consideration just as a decision maker should take into account all relevant factors. Learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the FIR in many of the cases and pointed out that the registration of FIR in those cases are either immediately prior to the advice of the candidate by the competent Authority or so closely proximate in point of time as to suggest the inclusion of the candidate as an accused in criminal case as a deliberate act of influencing the mind of the Government, when it seeks to exercise its powers under Rule 10 b(iii). Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mansarudeen v. KSEB [1994 (1) KLT 603 (DB)], in which the Division Bench had held that mere pendency of a criminal case arising from civil disputes is not a valid ground to hold that a candidate’s character and antecedents disqualify him for appointment to any service. Reference in particular is made to paragraph 3 and 8 of the judgment. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further refer to the decision University of Kerala v. Molly Francis (2004 (2) KLT 1157), and (1993 (3) KLT 285). The said two decisions support the stand taken by the petitioners that mere pendency of a criminal case as such should not be treated as a factor to straight away exclude a person from consideration. 10.13. The said two decisions support the stand taken by the petitioners that mere pendency of a criminal case as such should not be treated as a factor to straight away exclude a person from consideration. 10.13. Learned Government Pleader brought to my notice a decision reported in Balagopalan v. State of Kerala (1963 KLT 1167) to contend for the position that the satisfaction contemplated by Rule 10 (b)(iii) is an objective satisfaction, but it is conditioned by the words “such service” and therefore, the requirement for the post in question would always be one of the major factors that ought to legitimately be taken into account by the Government while exercising powers under Rule 10(b)(iii). I find considerable force in this submission. .14. I agree that the mere pendency of a criminal case as such should not result in the Government straight away coming to the conclusion that the petitioner’s character and antecedents disqualify him for appointment to any service. But at the same time, I have to hasten to make it clear that the pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as a totally irrelevant factor, in so far as the Government is concerned, when it seeks to exercise its powers under Rule 10 b(iii). Learned counsel for the petitioners are correct when they submit that the nature of the allegations and other related ancillary factors, in so far as the criminal case is concerned, would definitely give an .indication as to whether the mere fact that the candidate is arrayed as accused is a reflection on his character and antecedents as such. A typical example arises in W.P.(C).5131/2007. The petitioner therein is an accused in a criminal case, but he is the third accused in a private complaint filed by his sister-in-law for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. His brother and mother are accused Nos.1 and 2. I was taken through the FIR registered in this case. A mere reading of the allegations obviously by itself cannot in any manner be treated as an indicative of the character and antecedents of the person. What is the nature of the offence alleged against him? Is the crime in question a solitary instance where he is involved?. Is it a case where he has been earlier convicted in any criminal case?. What is the nature of the offence alleged against him? Is the crime in question a solitary instance where he is involved?. Is it a case where he has been earlier convicted in any criminal case?. Is it a case where, though he was arrayed as an accused in a criminal case earlier, it was compounded?. Is it a case where the dispute in question is what is called as a pure and simple civil dispute, as the term has been considered and understood in Mansarudeen’s case. Is it a case where the criminal case only seems to be a remote offshoot of matrimonial strife as in the case of Writ Petition No.5131/2007. In my view, these are matters which could be taken and which ought to be taken into account by the Government. While, therefore, it has to be agreed that the mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as conclusive of the character and antecedents of a person concerned in the negative sense, it will also have to be mentioned that pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as an irrelevant factor so as to be completely eschewed from consideration by the Government when it is called upon to satisfy itself as to the character and antecedents of a candidate for the purpose of Rule 10 b(iii) of the Rules. 115. If this be the position, then it again follows as logical extension of the argument that a reasoned order by the Government is a concomitant in every case where the Government refuses to issue an appointment order to a person who is otherwise advised in the normal process of selection as has happened in the present case. If the Government is of the opinion that the character and antecedents of a person are not satisfactory within the meaning of Rule 10b(iii), then it is necessary that the Government should pass a reasoned order in that behalf. As I mentioned above, the satisfaction that a person’s character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service need not be reflected in an order but he absence of satisfaction by the Government should be reflected in a reasoned order to be passed by the Government. 116. If therefore, a reasoned order is necessary, then the decision making process contemplates a consideration of relevant factors, and an exclusion off irrelevant factors. 116. If therefore, a reasoned order is necessary, then the decision making process contemplates a consideration of relevant factors, and an exclusion off irrelevant factors. This would again make it obligatory to issue notice to the candidate concerned and give him an opportunity of personal hearing if the Government proposes to hold that it is not satisfied that the character and antecedents of the candidate is not such as to qualify him for such service. 117. No such orders have been passed in the present case. There has only been a refusal to depute the petitioners for training which is mandatory as part of the service conditions. All the petitioners have either undergone training or are undergoing training pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. Of course, the training is subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. Necessary provisions will have to be made as regards the manner in which training undergone is to be treated. 118. I find it advantageous to summarize the conclusions arrived at one the basis of the above discussion. I therefore, hold that – (i). Government has the power and even an obligation under Rule 10(b) (iii) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R to satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of a candidate are such as to qualify him for “such service.” (ii). If the Government is satisfied that the candidate is otherwise eligible in terms of Rule 10 (b)(iii), then it is not necessary to pass a separate order in that regard. (iii). But if the Government is not satisfied that the character and antecedents of a candidate is not such as to qualify him for the service in question, then it shall pass a reasoned order specifically indicating the reasons as to why the Government has arrived at such a conclusion. (iv). Mere pendency of a criminal case as such cannot be treated as a disqualification within the meaning of Rule 10(b) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. (v). At the same time, pendency of a criminal case as such need not be ignored as a totally irrelevant factor by the Government, while it passes an order under Rule 10(b) as mentioned above. Government while exercising its powers under Rule 10(b) shall inter alia keep in mind the parameters as mentioned above. I hasten to make it clear that the list is by no means exhaustive. (vi). Government while exercising its powers under Rule 10(b) shall inter alia keep in mind the parameters as mentioned above. I hasten to make it clear that the list is by no means exhaustive. (vi). Essentially the Government should, by virtue of an objective satisfaction, satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of a person are such that he is not rendered unfit for such service. Obviously the nature of the alleged offence in question and whether he has been involved in such offence or any such offence earlier are relevant factors which will enter into the decision making process of the Government. (vii). An order under Rule 10(b)(iii) as mentioned above, can be passed only after the candidate is put on notice and after giving him an opportunity of being heard. Such order could necessarily be the subject matter of judicial review. 19. In the result, writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- 20. Government shall consider the case of the petitioners in each one of these cases in the context of Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R. If, after going through the relevant materials, Government is of the opinion that the pendency of criminal case as such need not be treated as a deterrent for treating the candidate as unfit for the service within the terms of the Rules, then, it shall proceed to issue necessary directions in that regard to the Subordinate Authorities. If, on the other hand, Government tentatively feels that the character and antecedents of a candidate are not satisfactory, then it shall issue a notice to the particular candidate, hear him and take a decision keeping in mind the observations above. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in each one of these cases. In all these cases, where the candidates have undergone training or have completed training, such training shall be treated as regular and proper, subject to any adverse order that may be passed by the Government in any particular case under Rule 10 (b)(iii) in the manner aforementioned. In all these cases, where the candidates have undergone training or have completed training, such training shall be treated as regular and proper, subject to any adverse order that may be passed by the Government in any particular case under Rule 10 (b)(iii) in the manner aforementioned. In cases, where the criminal case as such has ended in the acquittal as in the case of Writ Petition No.21214/2005 and where the candidate has also successfully completed the training, Government shall proceed to pass orders directing the candidate concerned to be permitted to join duty. If in any of these cases Government has already satisfied itself with regard to the character and antecedents of the candidate concerned, on the basis of the verification report as contemplated by Rule 10(b)(iii), then Government need not consider itself bound to undertake a fresh exercise as indicated above, merely on account of the pendency of the criminal case, provided the verification report positively indicates the character and antecedents of the candidate concerned.