M.Kumaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2022 Latest Caselaw 8849 Mad

                                                                                   W.P.No.13812 of 2020

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 27.04.2022

                                                      CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

                                              W.P.No.13812 of 2020
                                       and W.M.P.Nos.17173 & 17174 of 2020

                    M.Kumaran                                              ... Petitioner
                                                         Vs.

                    1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                      Represented by its Home Secretary,
                      Fort St.George, Chennai.

                    2.The Chairman,
                      Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
                      Paneton Road, Egmore, Chennai – 18.

                    3.The Member Secretary,
                      Tmail Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
                      Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 18.

                    4.The Superintendent of Police,
                      Villupuram District.                                 ... Respondents

                    PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
                    Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call
                    for the records in the impugned order C.No.A2/102002019, dated
                    23.3.2020, on the file of the fourth respondent and to quash the same and to
                    direct the respondents 1 to 3, to hold an enquiry dispassionately either
                    through a screening committee or otherwise, within a fixed time frame.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                    1/8
                                                                                       W.P.No.13812 of 2020

                                            For Petitioner      : Mr.Sudharshana Sunder

                                            For R1 & R4         : Mrs.S.Anitha
                                                                  Special Government Pleader

                                            For R2 & R3         : Mr.R.Kumaresan,
                                                                  Additional Advocate General
                                                                  assisted by Mr.J.Daniel,
                                                                  Government Advocate



                                                             ORDER

The relief sought for in the writ petition is for issuance of

Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned order

C.No.A2/102002019, dated 23.3.2020, on the file of the fourth respondent

and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to hold an

enquiry dispassionately either through a screening committee or otherwise,

within a fixed time frame.

2.The brief facts of the case:

(a).The writ petitioner has applied to the post of Police Constable

Grade-II, Tamil Nadu Special Police, pursuant to the notification issued by

the Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai for the year

2019 and he successfully passed in all the tests and selected for this post.

(b).At the time of police verification, the fourth respondent found https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13812 of 2020

that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.293/2018 registered by the

Milam Police Station for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and

506(ii) of IPC and the petitioner was arrayed as second accused and he was

arrested and sent to the judicial custody. The aforesaid criminal case was

taken up for trial in C.C.No.100 of 2018 before the learned Judicial

Magistrate No.II, Tindivanam and thereafter, compromise has been arrived

between the parties and the learned Judge has passed the Judgment by

acquitting the petitioner on benefit of doubt. Despite the fact that the

petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Case and he is entitled to the Post of

Grade-II Police Constable, but, the respondent by its impugned order dated

23.03.2020, refused to appoint the petitioner, based on the judgment passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thindivanam. Hence, the instant

writ petition is filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit without

considering the factual matrix of the case, on the date of submission of

application, the criminal case against the petitioner was ended in acquittal,

the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 23.03.2020 and

subsequently, the said judgment was also challenged before this Court by the

petitioner in Crl.A.No.115/2021 and by order dated 05.03.2021, this Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13812 of 2020

has set aside the acquittal on benefit of doubt and granted honorary acquittal

to the petitioner and further, this Court has held that the complaint preferred

by the complainant is falsely foisted against the petitioner and hence, it is

required for the reconsideration of the impugned order passed by the

respondent. Therefore, there is no legal embargo on the respondents to

reconsider the petitioner to the post of police constable.

4.Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule

14(2) in Sub-Rule (b)(iv) and Explanation (1) & (2) of the Special Rules for

Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 will not apply to

the facts of this case on the ground that on the date of submitting the

application, no criminal case was pending against the petitioner and

aforesaid criminal case filed against the petitioner was ended in acquittal.

Therefore, the order passed by the respondent dated 23.03.2020 is liable to

be set aside.

5.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

respondents 2 & 3 relied upon the order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.9621 of 2020, dated 24.07.2020, wherein, the petitioner was

acquitted from the criminal case in C.C.No.32 of 2015, but the same has not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13812 of 2020

been disclosed by the petitioner and thereby, the respondents therein refused

to consider the appointment of the petitioner therein to the post Grade-II

Constable; further, in the above said writ petition, this Court relied upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manikandan

and others Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services

Recruitment Board, Chennai - 2008 (2) CTC 97, wherein, this Court had

considered the scope of the Rule 14(2) in Sub-Rule (b)(iv) and Explanation

(1) & (2) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate

Service Rules, 1978; and also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs.

Abhijit Singh Pawar - 2018 (18) SCC 733, has dismissed the writ petition

by stating that despite disclosure of antecedents by a candidate, it is well

within the ambit of the employer to consider the same as well as the

suitability of the candidate. It was also made clear in the judgment that the

employer has every right to take into account the severity of charges, nature

of acquittal, etc.,to suit the job profile, for which the selection is undertaken.

6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

materials placed on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13812 of 2020

7.On perusal of the records it is seen that the writ petitioner was

arrayed as second accused in Crime No. 293/2018, Milam Police Station for

the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and the said

crime number was taken on file as C.C.No.100 of 2018, on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tindivananm and he was acquitted from

the aforesaid case on the ground of benefit of doubt. Challenging the said

acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt, the State has preferred Criminal

Appeal in Crl.A.No.115 of 2021 and this Court has allowed the appeal by

setting aside the judgment of the Magistrate Court in respect of finding of

the acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Thus, according to the

petitioner he has already been acquitted from the Criminal Court. Therefore,

there is no bar for considering the petitioner in the light of the judgment

reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 - Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India.

8.Therefore, this Court has safely come to the conclusion that

without considering the said fact, the respondent had passed the impugned

order. This Court finds some force on the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

9.Accordingly, this Court directs the fourth respondents to consider https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13812 of 2020

the request made by the petitioner afresh in the light of the decision of this

Court W.P.(MD).No.15726 of 2021, dated 25.10.2021, and to pass

appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law as early as

possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

10.With the above direction, the impugned order is quashed and

this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

27.04.2022 Dua Internet:Yes

To

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Home Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Paneton Road, Egmore, Chennai – 18.

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.13812 of 2020

Dua

3.The Member Secretary, Tmail Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 18.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District.

W.P.No.13812 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.17173 & 17174 of 2020

27.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis