JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent was charged for offences under Section 147, 341, 323, 504 IPC. He and the co-accused were acquitted on account of compromise effected on 01.06.2004. 3. Appointed as a Constable in CRPF while filling-up the enrollment form on 07.08.2004 the respondent did not mention that he alongwith other were accused for afore-noted offences were acquitted on a compromise made. 4. Employment granted to the respondent was withdrawn. 5. Relief has been granted to the respondent by the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2016) 8 SCC 471 - Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. . In para 30 of the decision various points have been summarised by the Supreme Court and concerning a case where there was a suppression of a material fact concerning character verification i.e. not disclosing conviction or acquittal in a criminal trial, vide para 30(4)(c) the Supreme Court has held that where the acquittal was on technical grounds or the benefit of doubt extended, if the offence involved moral turpitude or was a heinous offence then alone the employer would be entitled to consider all relevant antecedents. For non-henious offence the Court has taken the view that the same have to be condoned as a lapse. 6. The appellant has produced no material to show what was the participatory role alleged to the respondent as a group of the unlawful assembly which was alleged to have committed the offence of entering into the house of a neighbour. The offence under Section 323 IPC would show that the members of the unlawful assembly were not armed. Simple injuries were inflicted on the complainant side. 7. Under the circumstances we find no infirmity in the impugned order which directs reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but denies backwages for the period intervening removal from service till reinstatement. 8. The appeal is dismissed.