As per case facts, the petitioner applied for a Constable post and disclosed an FIR registered against him. The investigating agency later declared him innocent, and the Trial Court discharged ... him, though a revision is pending. Despite this, the respondent rejected his claim for appointment, mechanically preparing reports, misinterpreting rules, and disregarding previous High Court orders to consider his case in light of judicial precedent, leading to this third round of litigation. The question arose whether the respondent's rejection of the petitioner's candidature, failing to properly consider his discharge and the `Ravindra Kumar (Supra)` judgment and relevant police rules, was legally valid. Finally, the High Court found the respondent's actions to be a misuse of power and a disregard for judicial orders. It ruled that the petitioner, having disclosed the FIR and been declared innocent/discharged, should be considered for appointment under the applicable rules, and directed the respondent to issue an appointment letter with notional service benefits, while also imposing costs.