JUDGMENT RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 13th September, 2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench allowing the OA 532/2011 preferred by the respondent under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits including seniority and notional promotion etc. except back wages. 2. The respondent was selected for the post of Constable (Executive) in the recruitment held by the petitioner in the year 2009. The selection was subject to verification of character and antecedents. The petitioner during the said verification discovered that the respondent, while filling up the application form for the post, had deliberately concealed his involvement in a criminal case FIR 26/2004 dated 11th February, 2004 u/s 341/323/324/34 IPC of Police Station Manoharpur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. According to the petitioner also, the said case was disposed of as compromised and the respondent acquitted vide order dated 12th March, 2004 i.e. just one month after the FIR. The petitioner nevertheless issued notice to show cause to the respondent for having practiced concealment and thereafter cancelled his candidature. 3. The Tribunal has noted that at the time of FIR, the respondent was studying in class XI; that the incident was of a scuffle between the boys with cross complaints/FIRs having been lodged; that the respondent had neither received any notice from the concerned Police Station nor was he ever called to the Police Station. The explanation of the respondent in the reply to the notice to show cause was that he had forgotten about the incident and as such did not mention the same while filling up the form in the year 2009. 4. The Tribunal has allowed the OA preferred by the respondent relying on the recent dicta of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 . 5. We are pained to see that the petitioner, inspite of our having in the recent past dismissed a number of petitions preferred against similar orders, continues filing these petitions. 5. We are pained to see that the petitioner, inspite of our having in the recent past dismissed a number of petitions preferred against similar orders, continues filing these petitions. We have in our orders dated 2nd November, 2011 in W.P.(C) 7808/2011 titled Commissioner of Police v. Naveen Kumar Mandiwal and in W.P.(C) No.7472/2011 titled Jai Singh v. GNCTD as also in subsequent order dated 1st December, 2011 in W.P.(C) No.8453/2011 titled Commissioner of Police v. Ankit Kalawant reiterated that the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar has adopted a reformative approach and held that indiscretion during childhood and/or youth cannot be allowed to mar the future and has to be viewed in the correct perspective. We have rather in our judgment dated 22nd November, 2011 in W.P.(C) No. 8223/2011 titled Rajesh Kumar v. Commissioner of Police also noticed that the petitioner itself in its “Policy for deciding cases of candidates provisionally selected in Delhi Police, involved in criminal cases (facing trial or acquitted)” framed vide Standing Order No.398/2010 dated 23rd November, 2010 has brought about a change. 6. The present case is squarely covered by the dicta in Sandeep Kumar. The incident was not only during the childhood of the respondent but hardly grave; the FIRs appear to have been got registered in the heat of the moment and withdrawn/settled/compromised as soon as the tempers cooled down. Such incident cannot qualify to be of such a nature as to disentitle the person from employment in future. 7. We accordingly dismiss the petition. We refrain ourselves from imposing any costs.