Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797: whether it was an ‘honourable acquittal’ or only an extension of benefit of doubt, are aspects to be considered. State of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774: mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice. Union of India v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1: a person acquitted, giving him benefit of doubt, would not be automatically entitled for employment. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136: at cost of repetition, such an employee cannot claim appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.
Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532: by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of whether there is a conviction or acquittal recorded, employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 17 SCC 696: every individual deserves an opportunity to improve.
Even after, Avtar Singh, (2016) 8 SCC 471 Courts have enunciated different principles.
The generalizations about career prospects and age lading to condonation should be avoided. The discretion must still be exercised in a manner within a reasonable interpretation of margin of manoeuvre contemplated by Legislature.
– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20860 of 2019]