Madras High Court
V.Jayavarthanan vs The Member Secretary on 24 April, 2018
Author: S.Vimala
Bench: S.Vimala, S.Ramathilagam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.04.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM
Writ Appeal No.472 of 2013
& M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013
V.Jayavarthanan ... Appellant / Petitioner
versus
1. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
No.807 P.T.Lee Chengaalvaraya Naicker Maaligai,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District
3. The Inspector of Police,
Pudupettai Police Station,
Panruti, Cuddalore District ... Respondents.
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order, dated 17.01.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.1113 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr. A.Prabhakaran
For Respondents : M/s. Thangavadhana Balakrishnan
---
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Vimala, J.,) The writ petitioner is the appellant herein.
2. Originally, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1113 of 2013, challenging the impugned order passed in terms of Explanation (2) to Rule 14 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules (in short "TNPSS Rules"). By the impugned order dated 04.12.2012, the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, has passed an order with an observation that the conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory and therefore, he is not appointed as Constable. The reason had led from the finding that the conduct of the petitioner / appellant herein is not satisfactory, is the acquittal order passed by the Criminal Court at Panruti, dated 02.11.2009, in respect of a case registered in Crime No.11 of 2006 of Pudupettai Police Station for the offence under Sections 294, 323 and 324 IPC. Even though the case ended in acquittal under Section 248 (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the authorities concerned have stated that it is not satisfactory. Challenging this order, the writ petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge has justified the impugned order, by considering the decision reported in 2011 (6) CTC 440 (Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) and by considering the explanation (2) to Rule 14 (b) of the TNPSS Rules. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed by the petitioner / appellant.
4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the explanation (2) to Rule 14 (b) of the TNPSS Rules is very direct and very clear on the point and the expressions "Honourable acquittal" though not defined therein, it is the subject matter of judicial consideration and the decision reported in (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 598 : (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 566 (Deputy Inspector General of Police and another v. S.Samuthiram) clearly defines what is meant by the expressions "honourable acquittal" and if the facts of the hand are considered in terms of the said decision, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment. The relevant observation, with regard to the "honourable acquittal" is in paragraph 24 of the said decision, which reads thus:-
"24. The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594 : (1994) 26 ATC 619. 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."
5. In terms of the above judgment, when the accused is acquitted, after full consideration of the prosecution case, i.e., if the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused, then it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.
6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, reiterating the above said facts, submitted that order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly valid and does not require any interference by this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the rejection of the appellant's name for the post of constable, by the respondents was on the basis of his involvement in the criminal case and on the basis of the suppression of his involvement and therefore, the rejection and consequent impugned order and dismissal of the writ petition are perfectly valid and justified and do not require any interference by this Court.
6. Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether it can be construed that the accused has been 'honourably acquitted' in terms of the judgment passed by the criminal court.
7. A perusal of the judgment passed by the criminal court in C.C.No.46 of 2009, more particularly, paragraphs Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (wrongly noted as 9) would go to show that the points for consideration have been properly framed and proper evidence has also been taken note off. According to the evidence, the allegation itself is that the petitioner / accused caused only simple injuries by beating with hands and legs. This is the only allegation. While considering the veracity of th evidence, the trial court has considered the fact that P.Ws.1 and 3 are closely related and there is corroboration from independent witnesses. There is a clear finding that the available evidence is not sufficient to find the accused guilty. This discussion will go to show that the merits of the matter has been considered and there is a clear finding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons. If the judgment is considered in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 566 (referred to supra), one can easily come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner / appellant has ended in Honourable Acquittal.
8. When the case of the appellant is covered under explanation (2) to Rule 14 (b) of the TNPSS Rules, then it is clear that the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside.
9. As we are of the view that the case of the petitioner / appellant is covered under explanation (2) to Rule 14 (b) of the TNPSS Rules, it is a case where the writ petitioner is entitled to consider for the next recruitment.
10. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant participated in the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board held during 2012 and got provisionally selected to the post of Grade II Police Constable.
11. Since it is nobody's case that the provisions are not absent in the TNPSS Rules that whether the candidature has to be recruited in service or not depends upon the question whether the service Rules contain any such provision for recruitment and not as a matter of right and since the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is also silent on the said aspect, the petitioner's case has to be considered by the respondents.
12. In view of the foregoing reasonings, the order dated 17.01.2013 of the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.1113 of 2013 is set-aside and consequently, the impugned proceedings, dated 24.12.2012 passed by the second respondent, is also set-aside. The first respondent is hereby directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner / appellant, whose name is found in the provisional list as 0505362 (70-TSP).
13. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.
(S.V. J.,) & (S.R.T. J.,)
24.04.2018
Index : yes / no
Web : yes / no
speaking order / non-speaking order
srk
To
1. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
No.807 P.T.Lee Chengaalvaraya Naicker Maaligai,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District
3. The Inspector of Police, Pudupettai Police Station,
Panruti, Cuddalore District
S.VIMALA, J.,
AND
S.RAMATHILAGAM, J.,
srk
Writ Appeal No.472 of 2013
& M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013
24.04.2018