Madras High Court
S.Karthikeyan vs The Director General Of Police on 4 December, 2012
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
BBEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.11660 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 S.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable with consequential benefits. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Muthukannan Government Advocate :ORDER
The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to appoint him in the post of Grade II Police Constable.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and his father worked as 'Police Constable' and died on 27.01.2004. The Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O(4D) No.72 Home (Pol.15) Department, dated 01.08.2007 sanctioned for the appointment of Grade II Police Constables on compassionate ground among the candidates, who are wait-listed for the post of Junior Assistant/Typist. The petitioner was called upon by the first respondent for physical measurement and physical efficiency test on 22.09.2007. Again, another efficiency test was conducted on 27.10.2007 and 28.10.2007 at the Police Training College Ground, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. The petitioner fulfilled his physical measurement and physical efficiency qualification. Because of the petitioner's participation in the selection process, he discontinued his bachelor Decree course. On 09.02.2008, the first respondent informed the petitioner that the examination results will be published after obtaining an appropriate Government Order. The petitioner passed the physical eligibility examination. On 04.12.2008, the first respondent sent appointment orders to several candidates, whereas the petitioner was not given any such appointment order. When he met the second respondent to enquire about the same, he was informed orally that the petitioner's case was not considered as he was involved in a criminal case under sections 148 and 323 IPC. The petitioner was only a juvenile at the time of trial in C.C.No.160 of 2003 and after conducting the trial in a separate C.C.No.239 of 2003, as per the procedures contemplated under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner by judgement, dated 26.08.2003 on the ground that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the non-selection of the petitioner only on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case is not valid and therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the relief as stated supra.
3.The respondents filed a counter affidavit and stated that during the police verification, it was found that the petitioner involved in a criminal case for the offences under sections 147, 148, 341 323 and 506(ii) IPC. The said case ended in acquittal on 26.08.2003, as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the petitioner's case was not considered for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable. As per G.O.Ms.No.882, Home (Pol.VI) Department, dated 12.06.2007, where it was specifically stated that the person, who was acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, shall be treated as the person involved in a criminal case.
4.It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioner's father had expired on 27.01.2004 while in service. A proposal was sent to the Director General of Police, seeking for compassionate appointment for the petitioner and his name was also included in the list of candidates seeking for compassionate appointment. His serial number was 07 as per the proceedings, dated 13.09.2007. Willingness were called for from the persons, those who were included in the waiting list for Junior Assistant posts for selection to the Grade II Police Constables and accordingly, willing persons attended the physical measurement and physical efficient test. Only during the police verification about the character and the antecedents of the petitioner, it was found that he was involved in the above said criminal case, which was ended in acquittal on 26.08.2003. Therefore, he was not considered for selection.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
6.The only point for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner can be disqualified for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable, solely on the reason that he was involved in a criminal case as juvenile, which was admittedly ended in acquittal.
7.The short facts, as admitted by both sides, are as follows:-
The petitioner's father worked as Police Constable and died on 27.01.2004 while he was in service. The petitioner sought for appointment on compassionate ground, after the death of his father and his name was also wait-listed under serial No.7, as per the office memo, dated 13.09.2007. The respondents called for willingness from those persons, who are wait-listed for the post of Junior Assistant for the selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable and the petitioner, after giving his willingness, participated in the physical measurement and physical efficient test. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not physically fit for selection to the Post of Grade II Police Constable. But his case was not considered only on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case, which also ended in acquittal on 26.08.2003. The claim of the petitioner that he was juvenile at the time of the said offence and the trial court also separated the criminal case and conducted a separate trial against the petitioner as per the procedure contemplated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is not denied by the respondents.
8.It is further seen that the said criminal case also ended in acquittal by granting benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, when admittedly the petitioner was only a juvenile and the criminal court also conducted the trial separately under the said Act, it is to be seen as to whether the respondents are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by relying on a Government Order to say that the petitioner, though was acquitted on benefit of doubt, still he has to be treated as a person involved in a criminal case and consequently, he is not entitled to for selection. In my considered view, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the following reasons.
9.A perusal of section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 makes it clear that a juvenile, who committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of the said Act, shall not suffer disqualification, if any attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. Thus, it is seen that even if there is any conviction, still the same cannot disqualify the person, who was juvenile at the time of the committing the offence and had been dealt with under the provision of the said Act. When admittedly the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of committing of the offence and the criminal court had also conducted the trial separately under the provisions of the said Act, the respondents are not justified in relying on the involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal case, as a disqualification to reject his candidature to the post of Grade II Police Constable. When a conviction itself has not been considered as a disqualification under section 19 of the said Act, the petitioner, in the present case, is on a better footing as he was acquitted by the Juvenile Court granting benefit of doubt. Therefore, by applying the provisions of section 19 of the said Act, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
10.No doubt, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the judgement reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 in the case of Manikandan and others vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and 4 others, considered the question as to whether a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection of police service. The Hon'ble Full Bench had considered Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and ultimately found that the said Rule was not ultra virus and unconstitutional and consequently 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 of the State and the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustifiable. But the question involved in the said case before the Hon'ble Full Bench and the entire analysis was in respect of the Constitutionality of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was not at all under consideration by the Hon'ble Full Bench. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Hon'ble Full Bench to consider the scope of section 19 of the said Act. Hence, in my considered view, the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 also cannot be relied on by the respondents in support of their contention.
11.At this juncture, an unreported decision rendered by a learned single Judge of this court made in W.P.(MD)No.3130 of 2009, dated 20.09.2010 is relevant to be quoted. The petitioner therein also was dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board for offences under sections 147 and 364(A) IPC r/w 149 IPC. He was acquitted on the ground that there was no material placed to punish the petitioner. However, the petitioner therein was denied the employment on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. A counter affidavit filed in the said case placed reliance of 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, and the Hon'ble Full Bench decision of this court reported in 2008(2) CTC 97. The learned Judge by applying section 19 of the said Act found that the petitioner therein cannot be disqualified from getting an employment as he was only a juvenile and entitled to the benefit under section 19 of the said Act. The learned Judge also found that reliance placed upon the Hon'ble Full Bench may not be opposite and the dictum laid therein can easily be distinguished under the facts and circumstances of the case therein. I fully agree with the learned single Judge and I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable without reference to his involvement in the criminal case, when admittedly he was a juvenile at that point of time.
12.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable, if the petitioner is otherwise fully qualified to the said post. The respondents shall pass suitable orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition closed. No costs.
er
1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni.
3.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.