Madras High Court
T.Iyyappados vs The Member Secretary on 24 June, 2021
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
T.Iyyappados ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
No.807, P.T.Lee Chengaalvaraya Naicker Maaligai,
Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
East Police Station,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned proceedings in C.No.A2(1)/10/303/2018, dated
13.08.2019 conducted by the second respondent and to quash the same as
illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to issue
appointment order to the petitioner.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
for Mr.V.Munisasamy
For Respondents : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan
Senior Standing Counsel
Assisted by
Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, to quash the
impugned proceedings, dated 13.08.2019, conducted by the second
respondent and to direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the
petitioner.
2.According to the petitioner, he was provisionally selected for
appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable (AR). The second
respondent by order, dated 27.11.2018, held that the petitioner could not
be appointed to the police force. Challenging the said order, the petitioner
has filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.13049 of 2019. This Court directed
the learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the respondents,
to verify whether any criminal case has been registered against the
petitioner. On such direction, the learned Additional Advocate General
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
produced a letter, dated 22.06.2019, before this Court, wherein it has been
stated that no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. This
Court, by an order, dated 24.06.2019, recording the contents of the said
letter and considering the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this
Court, set aside the order of the second respondent therein, dated
27.11.2018 and remanded the matter to the second respondent for fresh
consideration. The second respondent again by the impugned order, dated
13.08.2019, held that the petitioner is not fit for the post of Grade II Police
Constable (AR) for the year 2017-18. Challenging the same, the petitioner
has come out with the present Writ Petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner extensively
referred to the impugned order, dated 27.11.2018 and the order of this
Court in W.P(MD)No.13049 of 2019, dated 24.06.2019 and submitted that
the present impugned order, dated 13.08.2019, is verbatim of the earlier
impugned order, dated 27.11.2018, except minor addition. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that in the criminal
case, the petitioner was acquitted Honourably and the contention of the
respondents that the petitioner was acquitted giving benefit of doubt is not
correct and referred to the Judgment of the criminal Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
C.C.No.148 of 2013, dated 03.12.2013 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar and relied on the order of this Court
reported in 2021 (3) CTC 735 [Manikandan Vs. Tamil Nadu Uniformed
Services Recruitment Board and others] and submitted that if a person
honourably acquitted, there is no necessity to disclose the criminal case.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that in
pursuance of the notification issued in the year 2020, the petitioner has
applied to the post of Grade II Police Constable (AR) and the petitioner
disclosed all the details in the application and prayed for setting aside the
impugned order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2013 (1) SCC 598 [Deputy Inspector General of Police and another
Vs. S.Samuthiram], with regard to the honourable acquittal and the
relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows:-
"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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
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."
4.Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents submitted that the petitioner was involved in a criminal
case and was prosecuted for an offence under Section 380 I.P.C., and a
candidate involved in a theft case cannot be appointed as Police Constable.
For entering into the police service, a candidate is required to be of good
character, integrity and clean antecedents. The petitioner was acquitted in a
criminal case only by winning over the witness and not by honourable
acquittal. The petitioner compromised with the complainant and the
complainant turned hostile and therefore, he was acquitted. The petitioner
suppressed his involvement in the criminal case and suppression gives
suspicious on the petitioner. In view of the nature of offence, the petitioner
is not a fit person to be appointed in the police force. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
respondent has given valid reason in the impugned order, dated
13.08.2019. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and prayed for dismissal of
the Writ Petition.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and
perused the materials available on record.
6.This Writ Petition is a second round of litigation. Admittedly, the
petitioner was provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Grade II
Police Constable (AR) for the year 2017-18, subject to police verification
and medical examination. The second respondent, based on the police
verification, passed an order, dated 27.11.2018, stating that the petitioner
cannot be appointed to the police force on the facts mentioned in the said
order. The second respondent has took note of the fact that the petitioner
was prosecuted in C.C.No.148 of 2013, dated 03.12.2013, on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar, for an offence under
Section 380 I.P.C and the case was ended in acquittal. The petitioner while
filling up OMR application, had suppressed the fact regarding his
involvement in the criminal case and due to his involvement in the criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
case and suppression of the fact, the petitioner could not be appointed to
the police force as per Rule 13(e) of Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service. Challenging the rejection order, dated 27.11.2018, the
petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.13049 of 2019 before this
Court. This Court, by order, dated 24.06.2019, set aside the order of the
second respondent, taking note of the letter, dated 22.06.2019, produced
by the learned Additional Advocate General, wherein it has been stated that
no criminal case or civil case is pending against the petitioner. After setting
aside the order of the second respondent, dated 27.11.2018, this Court
remanded the matter to the second respondent with a direction to consider
the case of the petitioner afresh. The second respondent again by the
impugned order, dated 13.08.2019, rejected the petitioner's case stating
that he is not fit for the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year
2017-18.
7.A combined reading of the impugned order of the second
respondent, dated 27.11.2018 and the present impugned order of the
second respondent, dated 13.08.2019, shows that the impugned order,
dated 13.08.2019 is verbatim of the earlier impugned order, dated
27.11.2018. In the impugned order, the reason given by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
respondent for rejection on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed
his involvement in the criminal case and the subsequent acquittal. The very
same reason given by the second respondent in the earlier order, dated
27.11.2018, was set aside by this Court, considering the letter, dated
22.06.2019, produced by the learned Additional Advocate General. The
second respondent has not denied the letter, dated 22.06.2019, produced
by the learned Additional Advocate General. In the letter, dated 22.06.2019,
produced before this Court on 24.06.2019, it has been mentioned as
follows:-
“(3). In this connection, it is submitted that, at present, the
above said candidate was involved in Pandalkudi P.S., Cr. No.171 of
2014 under Section 41(1)(a) Cr.P.C on 15.11.2014 at 04.00 hrs he was
taken custody for Preventive Arrest and the same was action dropped
by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pandalkudi P.S. After completion of
enquiry, he was released on the same day.
(4). The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station and
the Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Rural Police Station had stated in
their reports, dated 13.06.2019 that no criminal case is registered
against Tr.T. Iyyappadoss. The Inspectors of Police, Special Branch,
Virudhunagar submitted a report, dated 16.06.2019 that Tr.T.
Iyyappadoss is not involved in any civil and criminal cases and does not
belong to any communal and prohibited organizations”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
8.Taking note of paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the letter, dated
22.06.2019 extracted above, this Court by order, dated 24.06.2019, held as
follows “Therefore, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
clearly revealed that there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner and
he has not involved in any civil or criminal case. Therefore, this Court has no
hesitation to set aside the impugned order, dated 27.11.2018 in
C.No.A22(1)/10/306/2018 and the matter is remanded back to the second
respondent to consider the matter afresh”. If the letter, dated 22.06.2019, did
not contain true facts or the same was issued by mistake, the second
respondent ought to have brought to the notice of this Court by way of
review and ought to have sought review of the order, dated 24.06.2019.
Without doing so, the second respondent passed the impugned order, dated
13.08.2019, for the very same reason mentioned in the earlier impugned
order, dated 27.11.2018, which was set aside by this Court. The impugned
order passed by the second respondent is non-application of mind and the
second respondent has not complied with the order of this Court, dated
24.06.2019 made in W.P(MD)No.13049 of 2019, in letter and spirit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
9.For the above reasons, the impugned order, dated 13.08.2019,
passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside and the same is
set aside. The respondents are directed to issue appointment order to the
petitioner.
10.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
24.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ps
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
To
1.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
No.807, P.T.Lee Chengaalvaraya Naicker Maaligai,
Annasalai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Inspector of Police,
East Police Station,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)No.24745 of 2019
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
