Madras High Court
T. Sekar vs The Secretary To Government, Home ... on 20 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)1MLJ510
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. Pursuant to an advertisement, the appellant applied for recruitment to the post of Constable, Grade-II and was provisionally selected by Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). He was directed to appear on 26.8.03 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, for medical test and was found fit on such medical test. All other formalities were complied and while he was waiting for the letter of appointment, the respondent issued the impugned letter on 19.1.04 as per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1978) and refused to appoint the appellant on the ground of doubtful antecedent.
2. The appellant preferred W.P. No. 16375/04 and brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that S.C. No. 3/01 in which he was made an accused ended in his acquittal by judgment dated 30.10.01 passed by the 2nd Addl. Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli and thus the same cannot be taken into consideration by the respondents for coming to a conclusion that his antecedent is doubtful. By the impugned judgment dated 17.6.04, learned single Judge held that the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case of such a nature would disentitle him from getting appointment in the police service as per Rule 14(b) and dismissed the writ petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there had been a clean acquittal of the appellant and if the judgment of the trial court is noticed, this Court could come to a definite conclusion that the acquittal was not on the basis of benefit of doubt, but on merit, which could be termed as clean acquittal. Reliance was also placed on two Supreme Court decisions and a decision of the Rajasthan High Court, as discussed hereunder.
4. In the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Anr. v. Dhaval Singh , the Supreme Court noticed that the candidate for appointment as a constable put a cross-mark in the column in which he was required to give information about pendency of the criminal case, if any, against him. Later on, he voluntarily informed the authority concerned on 15.11.95 about the criminal case against him. Inspite of the same, his candidature was cancelled on 20.11.95. Having noticed that the candidate, Dhaval Singh was subsequently acquitted on merit on 8.12.95 in the criminal case and that he had voluntarily informed the authority concerned prior to cancellation of order of appointment, the Supreme Court held the order as invalid.
5. In the other case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Hyderabad and Anr. Reported in . In that case, the person had already been appointed in the service of the State and having been convicted for the offence under Section 294 IPC, his services were terminated.
6. So far as the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi and 7 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2000 (5) SLR 659 is concerned, having noticed the relevant provision of the rule, in the facts of the case, the Rajasthan High Court held that suppression of pendency of criminal case under Sections 336 and 337 IPC cannot be held to be disqualification and the candidate should be given an opportunity to explain that the suppression was not deliberate.
7. The aforesaid case laws referred to by counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the present case as the appellant has disclosed everything including the criminal case as was lodged against him and his acquittal in such case. The judgment of the trial court was also brought to the notice of the authorities prior to the appointment. The only question that requires to be determined is whether acquittal due to grant of benefit of doubt' could be a ground to deny appointment in Tamil Nadu Police Service.
8. Admittedly, the appellant was accused No. 10 in Crime No. 120/00 on the file of Sivagiri Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 334, 427 and 307 IPC. From the judgment dated 30.10.01 in S.C. No. 3/01, passed by the II Additional Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli, it is apparent that the appellant was granted benefit of doubt and so he was acquitted (see para-22 of the trial court judgment). Thus it cannot be accepted that it is a case of clear acquittal on merit.
9. In the case of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar , the Supreme Court noticed that the candidate was acquitted of the offence under Sections 304 and 324 read with 34 IPC. The Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, allowed the claim of the candidate for appointment in the police service. Though the said applicant was physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of the antecedent record, the appointing authority in the said case also found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as constable of the disciplined force. The Supreme Court held that though the person was discharged or acquitted of criminal offence, the same has nothing to do with the question. What will be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. The decision of the appointing authority focussing on this aspect having found the candidate not desirable to appoint, the Tribunal's decision was set aside and the decision of the appointing authority was upheld.
10. The present case of the appellant is similar to Sushil Kumar's case (supra). This apart, if the relevant Rule 14(b), as amended on 30.1.03 is looked into, it will be evident that the appellant was not entitled for appointment having been discharged on the ground of benefit of doubt. Rule 14(b) originally read as follows:
14. Qualification:
X X X X X X X X
(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority
(i) that he is found health active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for that service; and
(ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service.
Subsequently, in exercise of power conferred by Sections 8 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 and Sections 9 and 10 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1988 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the said Rule was amended vide G.O. Ms. No. 101 dated 30.1.03 and the following amendment was made in Rule 14:
In the said Rules in Rule 14:
(1) x x x x x x x x (2) In Sub-rule (b), after Clause (iii), the following clause shall be added, namely:
(iv) that he has not involved in any criminal case before Police Verification;
Explanation:- (1) A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant "turned hostile" shall be treated as 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.
X X X X X X X X
11. In view of the specific provision made in Rule 14(b), the appellant cannot claim any right for appointment in the police force of the State. We find no ground made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.