Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Hariparanthaman, in M.Mahendiran v. Superintendent of Police, reported in (2013) 6 MLJ 109, relying on the decision in C.Vijayaraja v. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 4 and 3 others - W.P.(MD).No.145 of 2010 took a similar view like that of the view taken by Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma and in this regard Paragaraph Nos.13,14, 15 of the Judgment rendered by the learned Judge reads as follows :

"13. In this case, it is true that the Full Bench judgment of this Court considered Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules and held that if a person was acquitted by a criminal Court, even then he could not claim appointment in view of Explanation (1) to the aforesaid Rules. But, the Full Bench judgment of this Court was considered in the order dt. 26.03.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.1145 of 2010 (Batch cases) C.Vijayaraja v. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 8 and 3 Others, and a direction was issued to the respondents/authorities to provide appointment if the candidates were honourably acquitted.
"No ground is made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly."

(g) In M.Mahendran, Thiruvarur District Vs. Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur District and another - (2013) 6 MLJ, the learned Single Judge of this court has dealt with a case of honourable acquittal and the same would clearly come within the purview of Explanation (2) of Rule 14(b)(iv).

(h) In W.P.Nos.1145, 5190 of 2010, 1525 of 2011 & 10539, 16858 of 2012 - C.Vijayaraja Vs. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai and others), the learned Single Judge of this Court has dealt with suppression of material facts, wherein also it has been clearly stated that with regard to suppression of material facts, a reference has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to a Larger Bench. Hence it is irrelevant for the present reference.