Madras High Court
T.Parthiban vs The Chairman on 27 July, 2022
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.No.4902 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.7.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.4902 of 2020
1 T.Parthiban ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, No. 807 P.d.V. Sengalvaraya Naicker
Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.
2 The Superintendent of Police,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent in C.No.
A2/E-68449/2019 dated 19.05.2019 and quash the same and consequently
direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as a Grade II Police
Constable.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Karl Marx
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.P.Kumaresan, A.A.G.
Asst. by Mrs.Sowmi Datton
Standing Counsel
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.P.Ganesan, G.A.
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4902 of 2020
ORDER
Pursuant to the notification issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable and was provisionally selected for the said post by the first respondent. The petitioner has also completed medical examination and police verification. At this juncture, the second respondent rejected his candidature on the ground that though he has been acquitted in the criminal case, the same is not an honourable acquittal, but on the ground of benefit of doubt. The petitioner has filed Crl.O.P.No.26940 of 2018 before this Court and this Court by order dated 20.11.2018 has held that the acquittal of the petitioner should be construed as Hon'ble acquittal, since the learned Magistrate has given a categorical finding that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the said impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside. The aforesaid rejection order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was provisionally selected to the post of Grade II Police Constable. The petitioner has involved in a criminal case registered in Cr.No.499 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sec.294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and subsequently the said criminal case ended in 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4902 of 2020 acquittal, however not honourable acquittal. Therefore, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.No.26940 of 2018 before this Court and this Court by order dated 20.11.2018 has held that the acquittal of the petitioner should be construed as Hon'ble acquittal. On the date of application, a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner had not disclosed his involvement in the criminal case registered against him in coloumn No.15, 16 and 18 of the application submitted for the post of Grade II Police Constable. As per Rule 14(b) (ii) & (iv) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service, a candidate being selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable should not involved in any criminal case and having good character. Therefore, the second respondent has rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner.
3. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the materials available on record.
4. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and other Vs. Bunty reported in (2020) 17 SCC 654 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4902 of 2020 ''9. Considering the nature of allegation in the case, it was a case of the serious kind, which involved moral turpitude and having not been granted clean acquittal in the criminal case merely by the grant of benefit of doubt, clouds cannot be said to be clear as to the antecedents of the respondent.
13. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that in case acquittal in a criminal case is based on the benefit of doubt or any other technical reason, the employer can take into consideration all relevant facts to take an appropriate decision as to the fitness of an incumbent for appointment/continuance in service. The decision taken by the Screening Committee in the instant case could not have been faulted by the Division Bench.''
5. Therefore, the aforesaid decision makes it clear that gravity of the offence which involved moral turpitude and having not been granted clean acquittal in the criminal case merely by the grant of benefit of doubt, clouds cannot be said to be clear as to the antecedents of the respondent.
6. The contention of the Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents is that though the criminal case registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.499 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sec.294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. was ended in acquittal by the Sessions Court is on 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4902 of 2020 benefit doubt, not honourable acquittal. This Court in Crl.O.P.No.26940 of 2018 by order dated 20.11.2018 has held that the acquittal of the petitioner should be construed as Hon'ble acquittal.
7. Therefore, in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bunty case supra, it is appropriate for the respondent to take a suitable decision by taking note of the antecedents of the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 19.05.2019 is quashed and the same is remanded to the first respondent to consider afresh and pass appropriate orders on merit in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
27.07.2022
Speaking / Non Speaking order
Index : Yes/No
vaan
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4902 of 2020
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
To
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No. 807, P.D.V. Sengalvaraya Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai 2. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District. W.P.No.4902 of 2020
Dated: 27.7.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis