Madras High Court
M.Senthil Kumar vs The Director General Of Police on 20 September, 2010
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/09/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD).No.3130 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 M.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.016253/Appointment 1(1).2008-21, dated 19.05.2008 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade-II in the recruitment made by the second respondent for the post of Police Constable Grade-II for 2006. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Ajmalkhan ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu Special Government Pleader ******* :ORDER
***** Heard Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order dated 19.05.2008. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner was successful in the written test for the post of Police Constable Grade-II, for which selections were held in the year 2006. His character and antecedents were enquired by the police and it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.221 of 2004 under Sections 147 and 364(A) IPC r/w 149 IPC. However, the petitioner was juvenile and his case was dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Juvenile Justice Board, by order dated 01.10.2007, in C.C.No.42 of 2007, acquitted the petitioner holding that there was no material to punish the petitioner. Based on the past record, the petitioner was denied the employment.
3. In the Writ Petition, notice of motion was ordered on 16.04.2009 and on notice from this Court, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit dated 09.07.2010. In the counter-affidavit, reliance was placed upon rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, wherein the involvement in criminal case can be held to be a relevant factor. Reliance was also placed upon a judgment of a Full Bench in Manikandan v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services reported in 2008(2) CTC 97. In paragraph No.6 of the counter-affidavit, it was averred as follows:-
"It is submitted that during police verification, for the question No.15- Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant? He has stated "No". For question No.16-Have you ever been arrested or convicted or sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal case or other offence. If so, give details with CC.NO. and Court? He was stated "No". And for question No.18-Are where any civil or criminal cases pending against you? He has stated "No". Therefore, the petitioner had suppressed the material fact of his involvement in criminal case."
4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a person, who tried under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is not a criminal and the Act itself uses the word "juvenile" in conflict with law and as per Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as"the Act"], a disqualification attached to the conviction was removed. It is useful to refer to Section 19 of the Act, which reads as follows:-
"19.Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.- (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.
(2) The Board shall make an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be."
Therefore, he submitted that when the petitioner answered question Nos.15, 16 and 18 regarding criminal case, he had given a negative answer, which is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and no exception can be taken. Alternatively, it was submitted that the columns in the form were filled up on wrong assumption.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon an unreported decision of this Court dated 28.01.2008, passed in W.P.No.315 of 2008, [G.Pandiarajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and 3 others]. In that case, this Court went into the identical contention and held that Section 19 of the Act only protects the juvenile and any stigma attached to said conviction is also removed. The learned counsel also submitted that the proceedings of the Juvenile Justice Board are kept confidential as mandated under Section 21 of the Act. It is also submitted that the purpose of the Act is to reform "a juvenile in conflict with law". Therefore, the respondents ought not to have disqualified the petitioner. He has also submitted that any conflict between the Central law and the State law, the Central Law would prevail. It is unnecessary to deal with the said submission, since there is no conflict between the State Law and the Central Law. In view of the declaration under Section 19 of the Act, even if there is any conviction, the disqualification is removed, since the proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act is by a special enactment and the person, who is tried under the Act, even has committed a crime, he is described as "juvenile in conflict with law". The purpose of the Act is to reform a juvenile. The stand taken by the respondents cannot be countenanced. The negative answers given by the petitioner as against question Nos.15,16 and 18 cannot be said to be deliberately made by suppressing vital information.
6. If any information had to be furnished, but not furnished or a wrong information is furnished on mistaken impression, a candidate can be given the benefit of doubt for furnishing such information. The Supreme Court dealt with a case of a person who did not disclose his arrest in the attestation form when he went for selection. On finding the antecedent and his character, it was found that there was a non-disclosure. The defence taken by the person was that there was a bail order granted and therefore, he was under the bona fide impression, but there was no arrest. The Supreme Court, vide its judgment in State of Haryana vs. Dinesh Kumar reported in 2008(3) SCC 222, in paragraph Nos.31 and 33, had observed as follows:-
"31. In our view, the reasoning given in Dinesh Kumar's case in that context is a possible view and does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Conversely, the decision rendered in the writ petitions filed by Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder has to be reversed to be in line with the decision in Dinesh Kumar's case. When the question as to what constitutes "arrest" has for long engaged the attention of different High Courts as also this Court, it may not be altogether unreasonable to expect a layman to construe that he had never been arrested on his appearing before the court and being granted bail immediately. The position would have been different, had the person concerned not been released on bail. We would, in the facts of these cases, give the benefit of a mistaken impression, rather than that of deliberate and wilful misrepresentation and concealment of facts, to the appellants in the second of the two appeals as well, while affirming the view taken by the High Court in Dinesh Kumar's case.
32........
33. In the result, the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.1840 of 2007 is dismissed, while the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.14939 of 2007 is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 22.9.2005, impugned in the said appeal, is set aside and the respondents concerned are directed to take steps to issue appointment letters to the appellants in the said appeals subject to fulfillment of other conditions by them. It is also made clear that the appellants will be deemed to have been appointed as Constable-Drivers with effect from the date persons lower in merit to them were appointed. However, while they will be entitled to the notional benefits of such continuous appointment, they will be entitled to salary only from the date of this judgment on the basis of such notional benefits."
7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner had suppressed a vital information, which will disqualify him from getting the employment. Therefore, reliance placed upon in Manikandan's case (cited supra) may not be apposite. On the contrary, the dictum laid down therein can easily be distinguished under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed as infructuous. The respondents are directed to comply with the order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs.
SML To
1.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4.
2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.