Judgment In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has challenged the order Annexure-P/1 dated 09/06/2011 and prayed for a direction to the respondents to act on the offer of appointment (Annexure-P/16). 2. The petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Sub- Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (for short, “CISF”). The petitioner appeared in Central Police Organization Exam-2009 in this regard. The examination was conducted by Staff Selection Commission (for short, “SCC”) at Raipur. After qualifying the written examination conducted by SCC, the petitioner received a called letter to undergo physical fitness test and medical examination. The petitioner successfully qualified in these examinations, copy of result of physical examination is filed by petitioner as Annexure-P/14. The petitioner was called for an interview by Annexure-P/15. After interview and due verification of his documents, the order dated 9th November, 2010 Annexure-P/16 was passed. In this order, petitioner was given offer of appointment and it was stated that the petitioner is provisionally appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector/Executive in CISF in the scale of 9300 – 34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200. However, by Annexure-P/1, petitioner's appointment was cancelled/withdrawn. It is stated that petitioner was not found suitable for the post of Sub2 Inspector in CISF by issuing Annexure-P/1. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 24/06/2011 through his counsel. In turn, the respondents replied the legal notice Annexure-P/19 dated 09/09/2011. In this reply it is stated that petitioner was involved in criminal case. His case was examined and he was not found suitable for the post of SI and, therefore, his provisional appointment was cancelled. 3. Petitioner was required to fill up attestation form Annexure- P/22. In Para 4 of attestation form, various information was desired from the petitioner. The relevant portion of the form and entries made by the petitioner reads as under:- xxx    xxx    xxx Was any FIR ever lodged against you in the past ? xxx    xxx    xxx a. If yes, case No. and sections under which FIR was lodged ? xxx    xxx    xxx b. Name of Police Station where FIR was lodged ? xxx    xxx    xxx c. Was the case charge sheeted or returned in FR ? xxx    xxx    xxx d. If case was charge sheeted, what was the outcome in Court ? xxx    xxx    xxx a. If yes, case No. and sections under which FIR was lodged ? xxx    xxx    xxx b. Name of Police Station where FIR was lodged ? xxx    xxx    xxx c. Was the case charge sheeted or returned in FR ? xxx    xxx    xxx d. If case was charge sheeted, what was the outcome in Court ? xxx    xxx    xxx (i) Convicted xxx    xxx    xxx (ii) Acquitted xxx    xxxx    xxx (iii) Compromised xxx    xxxx    xxx (iv) Compounded xxx    xxxx    xxx (v) Any other, please specify xxx    xxxx    xxx 4. The respondents have shown mainly two reasons for cancelling the offer of petitioner's appointment. In preliminary submission of the return, it is stated that in order dated 08/11/2010 Annexure-R/1 (Para 8), it was specifically mentioned that if answer to the questionnaire is “Yes”, the petitioner must submit complete details of the case to the Directorate. It is stated that petitioner has not filed the copy of order of acquittal with his aforesaid verification form, this was one of the reason for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The second reason is that in CISF which is an Armed Force of India, the post of SI is vital post. Considering the nature of the duties and responsibilities of SI, the petitioner is unfit for appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in this regard. 6. The basic question is whether the aforesaid reasons assigned by the respondents in passing Annexure-P/1 are justified. Para 8 of Annexure-R/1 dated 08/11/2010, makes it obligatory for a person to furnish complete details of the case. A bare perusal of reproduced portion of the questionnaire shows that petitioner has assigned various details including crime number, offence/sections under which case was registered, name of police station, district and reason for his acquittal. Thus, all details which were required to be furnished, were furnished by the petitioner. The only requirement of Annexure-R/1 (Para 8) was to furnish the details. The petitioner did so and furnished the relevant details. Para 8 of Annexure-R/1, does not prescribe that document in this regard be also filed. Thus, merely because petitioner has not filed his acquittal order, this cannot be said that petitioner has violated clause-8 of Annexure-R/1. The only requirement of Annexure-R/1 (Para 8) was to furnish the details. The petitioner did so and furnished the relevant details. Para 8 of Annexure-R/1, does not prescribe that document in this regard be also filed. Thus, merely because petitioner has not filed his acquittal order, this cannot be said that petitioner has violated clause-8 of Annexure-R/1. In all fairness, respondents could have asked the petitioner to supply acquittal order and could have verified it before actually permitting the petitioner to join the services pursuant to offer of appointment. Thus, this reason assigned for rejecting the appointment order is arbitrary and capricious in nature. The Apex Court in 2011 (4) SCC 644 [Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar] held that the approach of the authorities should be to condone the minor indiscretions made by young people rather than branding them as criminals for rest of their lives. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 9. In this connection, we may refer to the character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life. 10. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book Due Process of Law. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. They came up to London and invaded the High Court. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. They came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed: “I come now to Mr Watkin Powell's third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the Judge to show-and to show to all students everywhere-that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they strike at the course of justice in this land-and I speak both for England and Wales-they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them support the law and not strike it down. But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences which the Judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal, things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have appealed to this Court and shown respect for it. They have already served a week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer. These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards-of the poets and the singers -more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong-very wrong-in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which they have so wrongly disturbed.” (Vide Morris v. Crown Office, QB at p. 125C-H.) In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning. 11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned. 12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter”. (Emphasis Supplied) 7. In the considered opinion of this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), the petitioner did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC, yet the Apex Court directed to adopt a reformative approach, whereas in the present case, the petitioner disclosed everything and there is no suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner. On the cost of repetition, it is clear that as per Annexure-R/1 there was no requirement to file the relevant document. Since, necessary details were given by the petitioner, clause 8 of Annexure-R/1 by no stretch of imagination can be an impediment against the petitioner to get appointment. 8. Once petitioner is acquitted even on compromise, in the eyes of law, he cannot be said to be a convicted or accused. The allegations against the petitioner were of alleged offence of under Section 323/506 IPC. 8. Once petitioner is acquitted even on compromise, in the eyes of law, he cannot be said to be a convicted or accused. The allegations against the petitioner were of alleged offence of under Section 323/506 IPC. Once he is acquitted, it cannot be said that he is unfit for appointment in CISF. No enabling provision is shown by the respondents which debars the petitioner from right of consideration and appointment as Sub-Inspector despite his acquittal by the criminal Court. The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a person or even an accused is innocent unless found guilty. 9. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that reasons assigned by the respondents in not appointing the petitioner are based on extraneous consideration and are arbitrary and capricious in nature. 10. In the result, Annexure-P/1 dated 09/06/2011 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner and implement the appointment order Annexure-P/16 within 30 days. No costs.