JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the order as contained in Memo No. 5588 dated 24.6.2017 (Annexure-7), passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the offer of appointment given to the petitioner for the post of Constable/GD vide letter dated 29.3.2017, has illegally and arbitrarily been cancelled on the ground that the Standing Screening Committee has found the petitioner involved in criminal cases. The facts as derived from the writ petition are that the Staff Selection Commission published a notice dated 24.1.2015, inviting applications from competent candidates for recruitment to the posts of Constable/GD in BSF, CISF, CRPF, etc. and in response to that the petitioner filled-up his application form and he was allotted admit card for appearing in physical measurement and physical test. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the written as well as physical examination. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he qualified in all the events. Accordingly, merit list dated 6.2.2017 was published, in which the name of the petitioner finds place at SI. No. 18294. Thereafter, the petitioner was offered appointment on 29.3.2017 with a direction to report at Bhilai Battalion-1, RTC Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh for training but, due to malaria, he could not join there and requested the respondents through E-mail dated 5.4.2017 for extension of joining period, which was considered vide letter dated 8.4.2017 and he was directed to report by 20.4.2017. Subsequently, the petitioner reported on 19.4.2017 at RTC Bhilai, where he was asked to fill-up the attestation form, in which the petitioner has answered 'in affirmative' in the column "whether he was ever prosecuted in any criminal case or not". Thereafter, the petitioner was not allowed to undergo any training and was asked to return back to his home. Subsequently, the petitioner has received the impugned letter dated 24.6.2017, issued by respondents No.2, whereby his offer of appointment stood cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was found involved in criminal cases. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was made accused in only one case i.e. Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 79/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 1124/2013, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 342, 323, 337, 379, 452, 427 and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was made accused in only one case i.e. Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 79/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 1124/2013, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 342, 323, 337, 379, 452, 427 and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, later on, the matter was compromised between the parties and the informant Anwar Ali gave an affidavit dated 1.4.2017 that the petitioner was not involved in the aforesaid offence and accordingly, vide judgment dated 7.4.2017, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the petitioner has been issued Character Certificate dated 11.4.2017, by the Officer In-charge, Katkamsandi Police Station certifying that there is no adverse record against the petitioner in the said Police Station. Similarly, on 15.4.2017, the S.D.O., Hazaribagh has also, given certificate that the petitioner has no any criminal antecedent. Petitioner has brought all these facts to the notice of the respondents vide his representation addressed to respondent No. 1 but no heed was paid to his said request. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for redressal of his grievances. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order is not in teeth of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 [:2011 (2) JLJR (SC)224] and of the order passed by Hon’ble Delhi High in W.P. (C) No. 11978/2015. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order does not discuss that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. The impugned order also not discuss that the parties have compromised the criminal case, because, the informant has given an affidavit dated 1.4.2017 that the petitioner was not involved in any manner in the crime in question. Learned counsel lastly submits that the impugned order does not discuss about the suitability of the petitioner be inducted in the police force, considering the fact that the petitioner is not involved in serious crime of moral turpitude or depravity, like murder, dacoity or rape. 6. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Learned counsel lastly submits that the impugned order does not discuss about the suitability of the petitioner be inducted in the police force, considering the fact that the petitioner is not involved in serious crime of moral turpitude or depravity, like murder, dacoity or rape. 6. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that so far as contention of the petitioner that he reported on 19.4.2017 at RTC, Bhilai is concerned, the same is wrong and denied. The petitioner reported at RTC, Bhilai on 20.4.2017 and submitted duly filled-up attestation form dated 15.4.2017. Learned counsel further argued that the case of the petitioner has been decided in right perspective by the Standing Committee in accordance with the guidelines formulated by the Govt. of India. The decision taken by the Standing Screening Committee is vindicated in the backdrop of Policy/Guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs vide UO dated 1.2.2012. Learned counsel further submits that the services required, in CISF being disciplined and sensitive and to maintain the required discipline and standard of service, it is necessary that the selection of such person should be done very meticulously as it enjoins upon a higher degree of responsibility such as manning vital installations of the Country, ensuring security and protection and deployment in internal security duties as well as Airport, Metro, VIP Security and other vital PSU. Hence, the decision of the Standing Screening Committee in finding the petitioner not suitable for appointment in CISF is fully justified. Summing-up his argument, learned counsel for the respondents submits the cause of action has not arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and to that extent also, the contention of the. petitioner cannot be entertained. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court finds that the specific case of the petitioner was that while filling-up the attestation form, the petitioner answered 'in affirmative' in the column "whether he was ever prosecuted in any criminal case or not". Admittedly, there was no concealment on the part of the petitioner, neither there is any allegation of concealment by the respondents. Admittedly, there was no concealment on the part of the petitioner, neither there is any allegation of concealment by the respondents. The petitioner was selected by the respondents and thereafter, only on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case, he was not sent for training and later on, his candidature was also cancelled. However, it is apparent from the records that before the order of cancellation of the petitioner's candidature, petitioner was honorably acquitted from the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated 7.4.2017. Thereafter, petitioner has been issued character certificate dated 11.4.2017, by the Officer In-charge, Katkamsandi Police Station certifying that there is no adverse record against the petitioner in the said Police Station. Similarly, on 15.4.2017, the SDO, Hazaribagh has also given certificate that the petitioner has no any criminal antecedent. Petitioner has brought all these facts to the notice of the respondents vide his representation addressed to respondent No. 1 but no heed was paid to his said request and the respondents hurriedly passed the order dated 24.6.2017 (Annexure-7), cancelling the offer of appointment of the petitioner. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the catena of decisions on this point in case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016)8 SCC 471 [: 2016(3) JLJR (SC)387] has categorically held that:- "The whole idea of verification of character and antecedents is that the person suitable for the post in question is appointed. It is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment is made. An incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. The employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. The employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects." 9. In case an employee on probation can be discharged/refused appointment though he has been acquitted of the charges, if his case was not pending when form was filled, in such matters, employer is bound to consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects, overall conduct of employee including the accusations which have been levelled. If on verification, the antecedents are otherwise also not found good, and in a number of cases incumbent is involved then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases, it would be open to the employer to form opinion as to fitness on the basis of material on record. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. Similarly, in paras 36, 37 and 38.4.1 of the judgment passed in case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- "36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.. 37. The 'McCarthyism' is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service. 38.4.1. The 'McCarthyism' is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service. 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse." 10. So far as the question of cause of action is concerned, it is a bundle of fact which is necessary for plaintiff to prove his case so that he can succeed. In the instant case, though the original order was issued at Bhilai but the same was communicated to the petitioner at his residential address at Hazaribagh and therefore, part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Jharkhand and High Court of Jharkhand is fully within jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Law in this regard has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. In case of Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India, reported in (2006)6 SCC 207 , wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that:-,- "7. The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof. " The same view has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India &.Ors., reported in (2014)9 SCC 329 [: 2014(4) JLJR (SC)69]. 11. " The same view has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India &.Ors., reported in (2014)9 SCC 329 [: 2014(4) JLJR (SC)69]. 11. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2018 (Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr.) along with Civil Appeal Nos. 68 of 2018, 69 of 2018 and 70 of 2018 delivered on 8.1.2018, in which issue fell for consideration was as to whether, the candidature of the respondents who had disclosed their involvement in the criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled by the Screening Committee on the ground that they are not suitable for the post of constable in Chandigarh Police and whether the court can substitute its views for the decision taken by the Screening Committee? The Court opined that the Screening Committee had minutely examined the cases of the respondents and set aside the impugned judgment upholding cancellation of the candidature of the respondents holding there that "in a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high• standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh, reported in (2013)7 SCC 685 , the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening, Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference". 12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements and legal propositions of law, the decision of the Screening Committee that the petitioner is not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for any interference. There is no illegality or any infirmity in the impugned order. A person having criminal antecedent is not fit for appointment on the post of Police Constable. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. As such, no. interference is required in the instant writ petition. 13. Resultantly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.