Madras High Court
R.Thendral vs The Chairman
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : Orders Pronounced on :
28.02.2019 10.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Writ Petition Nos.32817 & 32818 of 2017
& WMP Nos.36165 & 36166 of 2017
R.Thendral .. Petitioner in W.P.No.32817/2017
R.Vittal .. Petitioner in W.P.No.32818/2017
vs.
1. The Chairman,
T.N.Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 8
2. The Director General of Police,
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai - 4
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District,
Vellore .. Respondents in both W.Ps
Prayer:- Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for
the records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned order
passed by him in Na.Ka.No. A2(3)/ 3000/2017 dated 01.11.2017, quash
the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Grade
II Police Constable and send them for Institutional training and grant
them all consequential service and monetary benefits.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner in both W.Ps: Mr. R.Venkataramani,Sr. Counsel,
assisted by,Mr. Alagu Sundaram, for Mr. Muthappan
For Respondents in both W.Ps: Mrs. Janaki, AGP
COMMONORDER
These writ petitions are filed by two graduates who had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable.
2. Common submissions have been advanced by Mr. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.Alagu Sundaram, learned counsel, for Mr.Muthappan, learned counsel, for the petitioners in both writ petitions and Mrs.Janaki, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents.
3. The submissions of the petitioners are as follows:-
(i) A notification was issued by the first respondent, the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to Grade II Police Constable, Grade II Ward Man and Fireman.
(ii) The petitioners submitted applications for the post, with all necessary annexures.
(iii) The application form contains a column regarding disclosure to be made about pending criminal matters in the case of the respective applicants. The petitioners have admittedly not filled in the particulars of Crime No.334 of 2016 on the file of the Vellore North Police Station, a case that they had been implicated in. However, they reason it saying that http://www.judis.nic.in the matter had ended in acquittal on 25.02.2017 and the petitioners 3 were hence of the bonafide belief that no disclosure need be made in this regard. This was particularly since the matter was not ‘pending’ on the date when the application forms were submitted by the petitioners.
(iv) The forms were taken on file and the petitioners were directed to appear for written test on 28.07.2017 and 29.07.2017, respectively. The petitioners successfully cleared the written examination and participated in the physical efficiency test and certificate verification thereafter.
Having cleared the physical efficiency test as well, the petitioners were provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable by Notification dated 30.09.2017.
(v) The provisional selection list reflected the names of the petitioners herein, pursuant to which they appeared for medical examination and for verification of antecedents. The petitioners cleared the medical examination as well. At the stage of verification of antecedents, the petitioners aver that, on advise, the required forms were filled by them omitting mention to Crime No.334/2016, on the basis that they had been acquitted and there was thus no need to refer to the same.
4. While this is so, the petitioners received the impugned orders dated 01.11.2017 cancelling the provisional appointment orders on the ground that the petitioners ought to have disclosed the details of the criminal case, the acquittal of the Petitioners had been on a mere technicality only and also that the conduct and character of the petitioners was not, in the aforesaid circumstances, satisfactory. The http://www.judis.nic.in 4 impugned orders challenged in both writ petitions are identical and the order in W.P.32817 of 2017 is extracted below for clarity:-
'jpU/u/bjd;wy; (gjpt[ vz;/0624789) (Ma[jg;gil ? Mz;) ntY}h; khtl;lk; 2017Mk; Mz;Lf;fhd ,uz;lhk; epiy fhtyh; gzpf;F. vGj;Jj; njh;t[ kw;Wk; ,ju njh;tpy; njh;r;rp bgw;w gpd;. mtuJ Ke;ija elj;ij kw;Wk; Fzeyd; Fwpj;J fhty; tprhuiz bra;ag;gl;lJ/ mf;fhty; tprhuiz mwpf;ifapy; mth; kPJ fPHf ; z;l FiwghLfs;
bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sd/ Fw;w tHf;fpd; tptuk;:
"ntY}h; tlf;F fhty; epiya Fw;w vz;/334-2016 gphpt[ 294(b).
324. 326 IPC?d; go tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L ,t; tHf;fpy; A1 vjphp Mthh;/ nkw;go tHf;F ePjpkd;w eLth; ePjpkd;wk; vz;/4 ntY}h; mth;fs; 22/11/2016 md;W ePjpkd;w tprhuizf;F vLj;Jf;bfhz;L CC.No/563-2016?d; go tprhuiz bra;J 25/01/2017 md;W jPhg ; ;g[ tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjpy; **vjphpfs; kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;s Fw;wrhl;Lf;s epahakhf vGf;Toa re;njfj;jpw;F mg;ghw;gl;L epU:gpf;fgltpy;iy vd;W jPh;khdpj;J 1 Kjy; 4 tiuapyhd vjphpfis Fw;wr;rhl;oypUe;J F/tp/K/r/ gphpt[ 248(1) fPH; tpLjiy bra;J jPh;g;gspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/**
2) nkYk; kDjhuuhy; g{h;j;jp bra;ag;gl;l tpz;zg;gotj;jpy;
thpir vz;/26 kw;Wk; rhpghh;j;jy; gotj;jpy; thpir vz;/15. 16 kw;Wk; 18y; kDjhuh; Fw;w tHf;fpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;l tptu';fs; kw;Wk; cz;ikfs; midj;Jk; mtuhy; kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
3) jkpH;ehL fhty; rhu;epiy gzpj; bjhFjp tpjp vz;/ 13(b) & (e)?d; go ,uz;lhk; epiy fhtyh; gzp epakdj;jpw;F xUth; vt;tpj Fw;w tHf;fpYk; rk;ke;jg;glhjtuhft[k;. mtuJ Ke;ija elj;ij kw;Wk; Fzeyd; jpUg;jpfukhft[k; ,Uf;f ntz;Lk;. nkYk; jkpH;ehL rpwg;g[f; fhty; rhu;epiy gzpj; bjhFjp tpjp vz;/13(e)?d; fPHhd tpsf;fk; 1d;go Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lth; re;njfj;jpd; gyid rhjfkhf bgw;nwh my;yJ g[fhh;jhuh; gpwH;rhl;rpahf khwpajhnyh tpLtpf;fg;gl;lhy; tpz;zg;gjhuh; Fw;w tHf;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;ltuhfnt fUjntz;Lk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk;. hpl; kD vz;/38289- 2005y; 28/02/2008 md;W tH';fpa jPh;g;gpy; tpz;zg;gjhuh; jdJ tpz;zg;gj;ij g{h;j;jp bra;ak [ ; nghJ jhd; Fw;w tHf;fpy; <Lgl;lijnah my;yJ jd; kPJ Fw;wtpay; tHf;F epYitapy; ,Ug;gijnah kiwg;gJ. epakd mjpfhhp tpz;zg;gjhuhpd;
kDit mtuJ cz;ikia kiw;fFk; nehf;fj;jpy;
bray;gl;lij fUj;jpw;bfhz;L mth; kPJjhd Fw;w tHf;fpd; Kot[ vGthf ,Ug;gpDk; mtuJ tpz;zg;gj;ij epuhfhpf;fyhk; http://www.judis.nic.in vd Miz gpwg;gpj;Js;sJ/ 5
4) gj;jp xd;W kw;Wk; ,uz;oy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Fiwg;ghLfs; fhuzkhf. md;dhuJ Fzeyd; kw;Wk; Ke;ija elj;ij jpUg;jpfukhf ,y;iy vd;w mog;gilapy;. mth; ,uz;lhh; epiy fhtyuhf gzp epakdk; bra;ag;gltpy;iy vdw tptuk; kDjhuUf;F bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.'
5. It is as against the aforesaid orders dated 01.11.2017 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District / the third respondent, that the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions seeking issuance of writs of certiorarified mandamus quashing the same and a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Grade II Police Constable, send them for institutional training and grant them all consequential service and monetary benefits, as they may be entitled to.
6. The sum and substance of the arguments of the petitioners is this: that the only reason why there was no reference to Crime Nos.334/2016 was that, by the time the applications came to be filed by them, the case had itself ended in acquittal and thus, the petitioners bonafide believed that there was no necessity to divulge the details. Moreover, the acquittal of the petitioners is itself testimony to the fact that the case had been falsely foisted upon them.
7. Reliance is placed upon the following decisions:-
(i) Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 (SC)
(ii) (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 598 (Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S.Samuthiram);
(iii) Division Bench Judgment of this Court, dated 24.04.2018 (V.Jayavarthanam v. The Member Secretary, T.N.Uniformed http://www.judis.nic.in Services Recruitment Board and two others);6
(iv) 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1943 (Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra).
8. The third respondent has filed a counter. The submissions of Mrs.Janaki, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents are in line with the averments in the counter. She relies wholly on the criminal case registered in Crime No.334/2014 under Section 294 (b), 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioners. She points out that the petitioners have not been honourably discharged but that the cases were dismissed since the prosecution had failed to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt. Quite apart from the crime itself, she reiterates the position that the petitioners were applicants to the Police Service from whom a higher standard of morals, ethics and character is expected. Having suppressed the details of the criminal case in their applications and furnished false declarations, the petitioners have proved themselves unworthy of being members of the Police force. It is for these reasons that the impugned orders have been passed in consideration of the questionable antecedents of the petitioners and lack of character displayed by them in suppressing the truth and filing incorrect application forms.
9. Having heard both learned counsel, I am of the view that the writ petitions are liable to be allowed for the following reasons.
10. It is not disputed that the petitioners possess all requisite qualifications http://www.judis.nic.in for the post they seek and this is borne out from the fact 7 that they had, in fact, been selected provisionally vide Notification of the first respondent, dated 30.09.2017. The sole allegation against them is that they had suppressed details of Crime No.334/2016 in the application forms submitted by them. This fact by itself, in my view, can hardly stand in the way of the confirmation of their recruitment.
11. Admittedly, the criminal cases filed had ended in acquittal vide judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore dated 25.01.2017. Thus, at the time of submission of the application forms, there were no criminal cases pending as against the petitioners. At best, the non-disclosure of the aforesaid fact would amount to a technical violation that would not have the serious implication of the petitioners being removed from the provisional list.
12. As far as the crime alleged itself is concerned, as the First Information Report reveals, the incident in question leading to the charges being laid against the petitioners, took place on 08.05.2016. The facts are that the petitioners and their friends were playing cricket at Vellore. In the course of the game, a dispute arose with reference to whether one of the players, witness No.2 in the criminal proceedings, was run out or not. This escalated to a quarrel and the petitioners are said to have hit the witness with a cricket bat causing serious injuries. This was the basis on which the charge sheet was laid before the competent court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
13. I now proceed to refer to the cases cited by the petitioner in their support. The Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) resolved the conflict and cleverage of option arising from various decisions of the Division Benches on the question of what would constitute suppression of information or submission of false information in the verification form in regard to the question of criminal prosecution, arrest or pendency of a criminal case in the context of employment. In that context, the Bench refers to the character of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s novel Les Miserables, who, on committing the minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family, was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern and correct approach, according to the Bench, should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life. In conclusion, a series of guidelines/yardsticks have been set out to determine the impact of suppression of information.
14. The relevant portions are extracted below:-
'35. Suppression of 'material' information presupposes that what is suppressed that 'matters' not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
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 concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
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. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
38.1. 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.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: -
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.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
38.5 In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
http://www.judis.nic.in 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character 10 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.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness.
However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.'
15. The take-away from the above conclusions is that there can be no hard and fast rule to the effect that every ‘omission’ to supply information is to be construed as ‘suppression’. There is a fundamental difference between ‘omission to supply information’, simpliciter, and ‘suppression, with intent to do so’. While the latter would have serious consequences, particularly seeing as the petitioners are aspirants for recruitment in the uniformed public services, the former might, at best, http://www.judis.nic.in 11 only entail a note of caution about best practices to be followed in such matters, but not disqualification from selection itself.
16. In response to the petitioners’ submissions that they have been acquitted and hence the charges raised as against them have been laid to rest, the Government has argued that the petitioners’ have not been honourably acquitted but acquitted only for the reason that the prosecution had been unable to prove its case beyond doubt. The Supreme Court, in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and another v. S.Samuthiram (supra) states in this context as follows:-
'24. The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal MANU/SC/0117/1994 : (1994) 1 SCC
541. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame', 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.'
17. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Jayavarthanam (supra) holds as follows:-
'11.3. So far as explanation (1) of the TNPSS Rules is concerned, there are two circumstances under which a person is treated as having involved himself in a criminal case. Those two circumstances are: (i) when the complainant turned hostile and (ii) when the court acquits or discharges the person on the basis of benefit of doubt. It may not be out of place to mention that the phrase "benefit of doubt" is indiscriminately used covering wide range of circumstances, irrespective of the merits of the case or even with reference to the merits of the case. Even when the complainant turns hostile, cases have been acquitted ultimately using the http://www.judis.nic.in phrase "benefit of doubt". Therefore, even if the language used is benefit of doubt, still the court has to consider whether the acquittal is based on 12 merits or on technical aspects. Explanation (1) of the TNPSS Rules has been framed perhaps taking into account the possibility of the accused threatening the complainant and thereby making the complainant a hostile witness.'
18. On an appreciation of the above, it is clear that discharge from a criminal case based on lack of evidence to prosecute can well be considered as an honourable acquittal. In any event, it will not operate as an automatic bar to employment/recruitment to public service. The facts and circumstances in question would have to be re-appraised in the context of the employment sought and an independent decision taken as to whether the allegations made warrant a serious enough consequence such as being debarred from recruitment or whether they can be construed as being technical and a more lenient view taken.
19. The Supreme Court, in Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra ((2018) SCC OnLine 1943) holds as follows:-
'6. Employment opportunities is a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case.
7. That the expression "moral turpitude" is not capable of precise definition was considered in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr., MANU/SC/0887/1996 : (1996) 4 SCC 17, opining:
http://www.judis.nic.in 13
12. "Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity...." '
20. The petitioners are young, aged 26 and 24, respectively, and have been found fit in all categories of tests. They have passed written examinations, oral interview, medical test, physical efficiency examination and the only reason why their appointments were held back was because of alleged non-disclosure of the criminal case, which itself had ended in acquittal. Moreover, two learned Single Judges of this Court have, vide orders dated 22.03.2018 and 19.12.2018 in Criminal Original Petition Nos.8860 of 2018 and 8759 of 2018, respectively, confirmed the judgements of the trial judges in favour of the petitioners.
21. Then again, the charges laid against the petitioners are also relevant. That the complainant turned hostile may thus not be very relevant in the holistic facts and circumstances of these cases and the acquittals in the present circumstances can, in the light of settled law, only be said to be honourable and not otherwise. As the Division Bench of this Court states, the phrase ‘benefit of doubt’ is used to connote a wide range of circumstances and thus while dealing with a matter wherein the conclusion turns on whether the accused has been acquitted honourably or by giving him the benefit of doubt, the Court will apply its mind independently to the matter.
22. I will thus advert to the merits of the charges levelled initially http://www.judis.nic.in against the petitioners to come to an independent conclusion in this 14 regard. The counter does not dispute the nature of charges laid against the petitioners, which is that the petitioners and their friends were playing cricket and a dispute arose with regard to whether one of the players was run out or not. This led to exchange of arguments and the petitioners are said to have hit the other player with a cricket bat. It was this episode that led to the registration of the criminal case. This incident has not been denied by the respondents in counter. On an appreciation of the incident as well as the trajectory of the criminal proceedings, I am left with no doubt that the incident in question started as a spat between friends, escalated into a altercation but came to be resolved in an amicable manner later. The entirety of the counter proceeds on the fact that there was suppression of the aforesaid criminal case in the application filed by the petitioners, which should not be condoned by the Court. In the facts and circumstances, as noticed and narrated above, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be said to have suppressed relevant information.
23. I may also refer at this juncture to Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Police Hand Book, which provides for situations where the circumstances of acquittal of an applicant should be taken into account in deciding eligibility of a candidate for appointment. Sub-rule (e) states that the candidate should not have been ‘involved in any criminal case before Police verification’. The Explanation clarifies that the bar set out in sub- rule (e) would apply even in cases where the candidate has been http://www.judis.nic.in 15 acquitted such as when the witness is found to be hostile. The Rule reads thus:-
'Rule 13.Qualifications.- No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority.
(a) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service;
(b) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service;
(c) that such person does not have more than one wife living; or if such person is a woman, that she is not married to any person who has a wife living and
(d) that he does not have knock knees or bow legs or flat feet.
(e) that he has not involved in any criminal case before Police verification:
Explanation (1). - A person who is acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.
Explanation (2). - A person involved in a criminal case at the time of Police Verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.'
24. The Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has reiterated the fact that youngsters, who otherwise possess requisite technical qualification should not be debarred for mere technical reasons. This observation of the Supreme Court would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The explanation given for not citing the criminal cases in the applications is the acquittal by the High Court, which is certainly a reasonable explanation. Youth and consequential lack of maturity cannot be a reason for withholding the appointment of otherwise qualified persons. The episode leading to the http://www.judis.nic.in 16 filing of the criminal case itself appears to have been an accident of youth and should not be permitted to cast a shadow over their careers and prospects in life.
25. The impugned orders lack perspective and are incorrect, both in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court believes that, going forward, Mr.Thendral and Mr.Vittal, the two petitioners, will display the necessary maturity, decorum and sense of responsibility called for to discharge functions as part of the Police force properly and appropriately.
26. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is quashed and these writ petitions are allowed. The mandamus sought for is issued directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Grade II Police Constables with all consequential service and monetary benefits and send them for the requisite industrial training. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed.
10.04.2019 Index : Yes / No Web : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order srk Note: Issue order copy on 23.04.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17 To
1. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 8
2. The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 4
3. The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District, Vellore http://www.judis.nic.in 18 Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J., srk Pre-Delivery Order in Writ Petition Nos.32817 & 32818 of 2017 & WMP Nos.36165 & 36166 of 2017 10.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in