ORDER : Per, Kuldeep Mathur,J. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in OA No.275/2018: “Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.”., whereby, the petitioner- Railways has been directed to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds on a suitable post being dependent family member of a deceased employee namely Rajendra Kumar. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the father of the respondent (hereinafter, referred to as, ‘deceased employee’) while working on the post of Ambulance Driver with petitioner-Railways passed away on 09.08.2014. At the time of the demise, the deceased employee was facing criminal trial for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC in connection with FIR dated 08.08.2012. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid criminal case, the respondent and his mother were also made accused for the same offence. The competent criminal court after conducting criminal trial against the respondent and his mother vide judgment and order dated 17.02.2018 acquitted them from the charges by extending them benefit of doubt. The application dated 19.09.2014 filed by the mother of the respondent to the competent authority seeking appointment of his son i.e., the respondent on compassionate grounds came to be rejected vide communication dated 23.08.2018 on the ground that the acquittal of the respondent in criminal case involving moral turpitude was not an honorable acquittal. 3. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- Railways vehemently and fervently submitted that the learned Tribunal while directing the competent authority of the railway department to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground failed to appreciate that the FIR dated 08.08.2012 was lodged by the complainant-Rajendera Kumar against the accused persons stating inter alia that the accused persons allured job aspirants seeking employment in the railways, to secure appointment in their favour and in order to deceive them, they not only got an application form filled up but also conducted a dummy written and medical examination. So much so, a forged appointment order for the post of Ticket Checker was also issued in favour of the complainant. As per the FIR, the written and medical examination was conducted in the presence of respondent. So much so, a forged appointment order for the post of Ticket Checker was also issued in favour of the complainant. As per the FIR, the written and medical examination was conducted in the presence of respondent. Learned counsel contended that looking to the seriousness of the allegations against the deceased employee and the respondent, mere acquittal in the criminal case would not automatically make the respondent entitled to compassionate appointment. The competent authority of the petitioner- Railways after considering all the relevant factors relating to the antecedents of the respondent in its discretion has rightly turned down the request made by the respondent to provide him compassionate appointment in the railways. It was urged that a perusal of the order dated 17.02.2018 passed by the competent criminal court clearly shows that the respondent had been acquitted on the basis of being extended the benefit of doubt. To buttress these submissions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments:- 1. “Union of India & Ors. v. Methu Meda”: (2022)1 SCC 1 2. “The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bhupendra Yadav”: 2023 AIR (SC) 4553. 4. Per contra, Mr. Anirudh Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the Original Application No.275/2018 preferred by the respondent. It was urged that the respondent was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him by the competent criminal court. As a matter of fact, the order of the learned Tribunal dated 23.01.2024 would indicate that the learned Tribunal after going through the entire order passed by the competent criminal court opined that no incriminating evidence was produced against the respondent before the competent criminal court and, therefore, in the absence of any incriminating evidence, his request for compassionate appointment should not have been turned down. Learned counsel submitted that a well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1. “Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh”: (2015)2 SCC 377 . 2. “Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”: (2024)1 SCC 175 . 5. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the record and the relevant judgments cited before us. 6. “Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh”: (2015)2 SCC 377 . 2. “Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”: (2024)1 SCC 175 . 5. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the record and the relevant judgments cited before us. 6. The validity and propriety of the order dated 23.08.2018, passed by the petitioner was assailed by the respondent before the learned Tribunal. The order dated 23.08.2018 is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready of reference:- As per legal opinion in the instant case, the acquittal given by the Hon’ble court cannot be said as honorable acquittal; since it is a case involving ‘Moral Turpitude’ as such compassionate appointment in the instant case in not justified.” 7. The observations made by the learned Tribunal in para nos.15 to 17 while allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent read as under:- “15. After perusal of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that denial of appointment should not be arbitrary. In the present matter, we are not inclined to approve the action of the respondents in not giving compassionate appointment to the applicant on the ground that his acquittal was not honourable acquittal We note that the respondent authorities did not go through the incriminating evidence produced against the applicant during the criminal trial. In our view, the respondents should have gone through the adverse evidence available on record before rejecting out rightly the claim of the applicant on compassionate grounds. It is true that acquittal itself does not entitle any person for appointment on compassionate ground. In such cases, the respondents authority should consider the facts and circumstances wherein the applicant was made accused and thereafter acquitted from the offence after trial. In the absence of any incriminating evidence against the applicant, his claim should not be thrown out. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents failed to indicate any provision which make the applicant ineligible for consideration with a view to give him appointment on compassionate grounds without indicating the incriminating evidence found against the applicant during the trial. 17. In view of above the impugned communication dated 23.08.2018 (Annex.A/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents failed to indicate any provision which make the applicant ineligible for consideration with a view to give him appointment on compassionate grounds without indicating the incriminating evidence found against the applicant during the trial. 17. In view of above the impugned communication dated 23.08.2018 (Annex.A/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 23.08.2018 and, direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds while keeping the observations made by us in this order. This exercise should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 8. There can be no quarrel on the issue that if a person is acquitted by the competent criminal court from the charge levelled against him/her involving moral turpitude by extending the benefit of doubt or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him/her for the employment in a government job. The employer is having discretion to consider the candidature of a candidate in terms of the circulars issued by the department in this regard. In other words, if the employer after judicious exercise of its discretion and after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the competent criminal court and the other relevant factors reaches to a conclusion that a candidate is acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can declare him unsuitable for appointment. 9. In the present case, a bare look at the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal indicates that after going through the order of competent criminal Court, learned Tribunal reached to a conclusion that no direct or circumstantial evidence or incriminating material was produced before the competent criminal court to establish that the respondent had committed the alleged offences. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”: (2024)1 SCC 175 was pleased to observed that the expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not be understood as magic incantations. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings was after consideration of the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. 10. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings was after consideration of the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. 10. In the present case, this Court also finds that there is no material available on record to show that the petitioner- Railways has a right to deny employment to a candidate on mere filing of FIR against him. The petitioner- Railways was required to examine suitability of the respondent for compassionate appointment in terms of the rules governing compassionate appointment and various circulars issued by it in that regard. 11. This Court finds that the petitioner-Railways has denied appointment to the respondent on the basis of legal opinion obtained by the department which itself cannot be sufficient ground to deny appointment to the respondent. The result of criminal trial with reference to evidence, witnesses and circumstances produced before the competent authority of the petitioner should have been taken into consideration by the Railways while exercising its discretion for assessing the candidature of a candidate to be appointed in the department on compassionate grounds. The employer is required to consider the judgment passed by the competent criminal court in a rational manner and independently applied its own mind to the judgment in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the acquittal of the candidate in the criminal case was honourable or not. However, the competent authority of the Railways considered the judgment passed by criminal Court in a perfunctory manner and the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority of the petitioner is not cogent and lacks proper application of mind. The decision of the petitioner-Railways to solely rely on the legal opinion of the department for considering the candidature of the respondent cannot be countenanced in law. 12. In wake of discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds that the judgment dated 23.01.2024 impugned in the present writ petition does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. 13. As a result thereof, the judgment 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) in OA No.275/2018: “Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.” is upheld. 15. The instant writ petition is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.