Madras High Court
M.Sakthivel vs ) The Director General Of Police on 10 July, 2020
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DELIVERED ON: 09.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD)Nos.8072, 6234, 8169, 8264, 8585, 8757, 11725, 7556, 5715,
7333, 7508, 17694, 6543, 6788, 6833, 6908, 6197 & 6210 of 2020 and
6698 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.7490, 5446, 7581 to 7583, 7660,
7596, 8052, 8053, 10180, 10181, 7048, 4986 to 4988, 6781, 6980, 6981,
6983, 14785 to 14787, 5887, 6182, 6235, 6236, 6329, 6330 & 5419 of
2020 and 5164 of 2021
(Through Video Conference)
W.P.(MD) No.8072 of 2020:
M.Sakthivel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1) The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Police Department,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004
2) Tamil Nadu Uniformed
Services Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
3) The Superintendent of Police,
Trichy District,
Trichy. ... Respondents
1/17
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the
file of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned order of
rejection passed by him in his proceedings in C.No.A2/33691/2019 dated
10.07.2020 and quash the same as arbitrary and consequently direct the
respondents to appoint the petitioner based on the provisional selection
list issued by the 2nd respondent in the post of Grade – II Police
Constable on par with his batch mates for the recruitment done in the
year 2019 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.K.Chellapandian,
Additional Advocate General
COMMON ORDER
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners' involvement in criminal cases, have been cited as a reason for disqualifying them for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constables, in the Common Recruitment Process-2019, held by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB).
2. It is stated by the respondents that these petitioners have suppressed the fact of their involvement in the criminal case, either in their application form or during the verification roll. 2/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch)
3. The respondents have mainly placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Manikandan vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board reported in (2008) 2 CTC 97 wherein it was held that, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service, which is neither illegal nor unjustifiable. The decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench in Manikandan's case (cited supra) was affirmed by a Larger Bench of Five Judges of the Madras High Court in the case of J. Alex Ponseelan vs. the Director General of Police and others.
4. After the pronouncements by the Hon'ble Five Bench on 27.02.2014, there has been a transgression on the law relating to the procedure to be adopted while conducting recruitment to the uniformed services.
5. In Joginder Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others reported in (2015) 2 SCC 377, an honourable acquittal in the 3/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) criminal case was carved out of the guidelines, as an exception to disqualification.
6. Later, in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, non-disclosure of the involvement in a criminal case by a candidate at his/her young age or for a petty offence or cases that are trivial in nature, were recommended for condonation and was held that suppression of such involvement, could be ignored.
7. Likewise, in Commissioner of Police & others vs. Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644, it was held that young people, aged about 20 years and less, often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions could be condoned, rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
8. In this background, it is realised that the law relating to the procedure to be adopted during Recruitment to the Uniformed Services have been time and again moderated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in these decisions. Thus, the Recruitment Board are required to scrupulously 4/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) apply the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the candidatures of individual cases. However, this requirement has been ignored in the present cases.
9. One common feature evidenced in most of the decisions before the Hon'ble Apex Court was that the recruitment procedures for the Police Departments across the country were required to cross the stage of scrutiny by 'a Screening Committee' consisting of high ranking officials. Insofar as the Police Department of State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, such a 'Screening Committee' is absent and the Appointing Authority viz. Superintendents of Police of the respective Districts of Tamil Nadu or the Deputy Commissioners of Police in the metropolitan cities, scrutinize the candidatures.
10. When this Court was of the view that the presence of a Screening Committee would have facilitated evasion of indiscriminate rejections and called upon the respondents to explore the possibility of forming a Screening Committee, the learned Additional Advocate General, after obtaining instructions, produced a copy of the proceedings 5/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) of Director General of Police in Rc.No.001455/Rect1(2)/2021 dated 22.02.2021, stating that, for the process of recruitment of Grade II Police Constables in the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, the Appointing Authority, namely the Superintendents of Police in the Districts of Tamil Nadu (or) the Deputy Commissioners of Police in the cities, play the role of a Screening Committee, whereby, they are required to cause police verification of the character and antecedents of the provisionally selected candidates; subject the candidates to medical examination through the Medical Board; scrutinize the records; and thereafter issue appointment orders. In view of the screening done by the Appointing Authority themselves, the Director General of Police, had expressed their inability to form a separate Screening Committee.
11. This apart, the proceedings of the Director General of Police dated 22.02.2021 also states that the appointing Authorities, who play the role of the Screening Committee, have been instructed to consider the guidelines while dealing with the candidature of the applicants. The following are such of those guidelines:
“ 7. The following points should also be considered 6/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) before issuance of the endorsement:-
a. Every case has to be judged on its merit. b. “Honourable acquittal” restores the right of individual. Hence honourable acquittal before the date of police verification means that the candidate must be considered favourably. c. A case referred on “Mistake of Fact” has to be favourably viewed for the candidate. d. Discharge on technical grounds (hostile witnesses) does not entitle the candidate for automatic clearance and the appointing authorities may still reject the candidature on ground of unsuitability to do the nature of the duty.
e. Suppression of involvement in a case still under investigation or trial or not ending in honourable acquittal is a ground sufficient for rejection of the candidate.
f. Petty cases should not lead to over penalization.
8. It is also informed that the following types of candidates were considered for appointment to the post of SI of Police/Gr.II PCs on earlier occasions.
i) The candidates acquitted honourably prior to Police Verification.7/17
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch)
ii) The persons released under probation of offenders act were treated as not involved in a criminal case, in view of section 12 of the PO Act 1958 which stipulates that convicts released on Probation of Conduct Act or after admonition by the Court shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction.
iii) The persons released under Juvenile Act were treated as not involved in a criminal case. Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 which stipulates that a juvenile has committed an offence and has been dealt with under provision of this act shall not suffer disqualification, if any attached to conviction of an offence under such law.
iv) If any political affiliation on the candidate comes to notice during the Police Verification, it will not be held against him, unless he is having other bad antecedents. However, he shall be instructed not to involved in such activities as per conduct rules.
v) The candidate whose names are deleted from the charge sheet.
vi) The cases treated as Mistake of fact prior to police verification.
vii) Some of the candidates involved in petty cases 8/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) were considered.
viii)Accident cases were considered if the case was pending at the time of police verification and if there was no suppression of fact.
ix) The case in which the I.O registered the case against a minor candidates under IPC and not under Juvenile Justice Act, his case were considered for appointment.
x) The cases where fine was imposed upto Rs.2,000/- were considered.
9.The date of Police Verification is the date on which the verifying Officer (i.e.Not below the rank of SI of Police) is Counter signing the verification Roll.
10.The persons who are acquitted under benefit of doubt (or) hostility of complainant will be treated as involved in criminal case and he will not be considered for appointment as per Rule 14(b) of TNSPSS Rules (or) Rule 13 of TNPSS Rules.”
12. The instructions of the Director General of Police also states that these guidelines are in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the relevant rules and that the above guidelines “should” also be considered before issuance of the endorsement (i.e.) 9/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) before rejection of a candidature. Thus, such guidelines are deemed to be mandatory and the Authority scrutinizing the applicants' candidatures, would have to necessarily abide by them.
13. Insofar as the cases involved in the present writ petitions are concerned, the candidature of the petitioners were rejected, on the ground that they were involved in criminal cases and their involvement have been suppressed either in the Application form or during verification roll or both.
14. One common feature in all these cases are that, all the writ petitioners herein were less than 20 years of age, when they were alleged to have involved themselves in the criminal cases. However, all the petitioners have been acquitted by the Trial Courts or their involvement in the criminal proceedings were quashed by order of this Court.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar's case (cited supra) had held that non-disclosure of such involvement in the criminal case, in respect of young persons aged about 20 years or so, can be 10/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) condoned, instead of creating a life-long stigma. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:
“8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our won opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives ”
16. In the instant cases, the age of the petitioners at the time of the occurrence of the criminal case and its details, are as follows:
Sl.No. Case Number Age/ Details of the Criminal Case 1 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 19 years and the 8072 of 2020 petitioner's name was dropped from the FIR on 28.08.2019.2 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was a Juvenile.
6234 of 2020 11/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) 3 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was a minor and the 8169 of 2020 FIR in which he was involved was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.19221 of 2019.
4 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was aged 19 years and 8264 of 2020 his involvement in a trivial case involving 3500 accused and 78 accused in Crime No.51 of 2017 and Crime No.70 of 2017 respectively, and was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3475 of 2020, insofar as 1st Crime No.51 of 2017 is concerned and further action was dropped in Crime No.70 of 2017.
5 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 19 years and he 8585 of 2020 was acquitted from the case.
6 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 20 years and he 8757 of 2020 was acquitted from the case.
7 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 17 years and11725 of 2020 acquitted from the case.
8 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 19 years old and
6698 of 2021 acquitted from the case.
9 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was aged 18 years old
7556 of 2020 and was involved in a Motor Vehicle
Accident Case and the FIR was
quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.
5437 of 2020.
10 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 18 years and
5715 of 2020 acquitted from the case.
11 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 18 years of age and
7333 of 2020 acquitted from the case.
12 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was treated as a
7508 of 2020 Juvenile and charges against the
petitioner were terminated.
12/17
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) 13 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 18 years old and 17694 of 2020 acquitted from the case.
14 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 16 years and was 6543 of 2020 involved in a case being trivial in nature, for violation of procedure under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.
15 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was aged 19 years and
6788 of 2020 acquitted from the case.
16 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 19 years old and
6833 of 2020 acquitted from the criminal case.
17 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 16 years old and a
6908 of 2020 minor and during the time of filing the
final report, his name was dropped
from the criminal case.
18 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was a minor and
6210 of 2020 acquitted from the case.
19 W.P.(MD) No. The petitioner was 19 years old and
6197 of 2020 acquitted from the criminal case.
17. In all the aforesaid cases, it is seen that the petitioners were less that 20 years or minors or juvenile during their alleged involvement in the occurrence that took place in their respective criminal cases or the offences for which they have been implicated were petty offences or the cases were trivial in nature or were motor accident cases.
18. Clause 8(iii) and (ix) of the guidelines of the Director General of Police dated 22.02.2021, extracted in the aforesaid paragraphs, also 13/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) indicate that the cases against Juveniles /minors, were considered for appointments to the post of Sub Inspector of Police or Grade II Police Constable on earlier occasions. The Superintendent of Police of the respective Districts and the Deputy Commissioners of Police of cities, have not taken into consideration of clause 8(iii) ad (ix) of these guidelines, as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar's case, (cited supra) and have simply rejected the candidature on the ground that they were involved in a criminal case and their involvement were suppressed either in the application form or at the time of verification roll.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (cited supra) in paragraph 38.4.(i) has taken into consideration the age and nature of the criminal offences in which the candidates were involved and held that, suppression of the criminal case which is trivial in nature or for petty offences or by a young person, could be condoned. The relevant portion reads thus:
“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 14/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.”
20. In the light of the guidelines of the Director General of Police dated 22.02.2021 as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar's case (cited supra) and Avtar Singh's case (cited supra), the rejection of the candidature of all the petitioners herein, without consideration of these aspects, cannot be sustained. Consequently, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's candidatures, in the light of the observations made in this order.
21. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the concerned Superintendents of Police of the various Districts in Tamil Nadu/ Deputy Commissioners of the cities, to whose jurisdiction the petitioners herein are subjected for the Common Recruitment Process – 2019 to re-scrutinize the petitioners' candidatures, in the light of the observations made in the present order and take further course of action, in the recruitment process, atleast within a period of six weeks from the date of 15/17 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions stand allowed accordingly. No costs.
09.04.2021
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
sts/DP
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned. To:
1) The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004
2) The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008
3) The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.16/17
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc(batch) M.S.RAMESH, J., sts Common Order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.8072 of 2020...etc (batch) Dated:
09.04.2021 17/17 http://www.judis.nic.in