Madras High Court
A.Suresh vs The Director General Of Police on 30 June, 2022
W.A.(MD)No.640 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.640 of 2022
A.Suresh ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
State Head Quarters Office, Chennai-4.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Nainarkoil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent, to set
aside the order in W.P.(MD)No.916 of 2020, dated 11.01.2022.
For Appellant :Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents :Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.640 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This appeal is preferred by the Writ Petitioner, who had filed
W.P.(MD)No.916 of 2020 challenging the impugned order passed by the
third respondent, dated 24.10.2019 and to direct the respondents 1 to 3
to issue appointment order to the appellant to the post of Grade-II Police
Constable for the year 2017.
2.Heard Mr.R.Murugan, learned Counsel for the appellant and
Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by
Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice
for the respondents. By consent of both parties, this Writ Appeal is taken
up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
3.The appellant submitted an application on 13.07.2017
pursuant to the recruitment notice issued by the respondents for the post
of Grade-II Police Constables, Grade-II Jail Warders and Firemen for the
year 2017. Though the appellant submitted an application on
13.02.2017, an FIR in Cr.No.230 of 2017, was registered on 23.09.2017
against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.640 of 2022
4.After police verification, by the order of the third respondent,
dated 24.10.2017, the appellant's candidature was rejected on the
ground that he has suppressed materials facts at the time of submission
of application and participating in the selection process. In the Writ
Petition filed by the appellant in W.P(MD)No.20068 of 2017, the
impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the third
respondent by order, dated 11.01.2018. Thereafter, by order, dated
24.04.2018, another order was passed rejecting the candidature of the
appellant mainly on the ground of suppression of appellant's involvement
in criminal case. When that was challenged in W.P(MD)No.12405 of
2018, by the appellant, that Writ Petition was allowed and remitted to re-
consider the candidature of appellant. Once again the third respondent
rejected the candidature of the appellant mainly on the ground of
suppression. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.916
of 2020. Meanwhile, the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case on
the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges and after
accepting the case of all the accused that false complaint is given.
5.The learned Single Judge of this Court, though found that the
appellant/Writ Petitioner has not suppressed any material fact in his
application, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the
appellant/Writ Petitioner's involvement in the criminal case is admitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.640 of 2022
and that therefore, the candidature of the appellant/Writ Petitioner is
liable to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the above Writ Appeal is
filed.
6.The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that it is the
duty of the appointing authority to satisfy himself whether the candidate
is suitable for appointment to the post of Constable with reference to the
nature of criminal case. Referring to the judgments of Honourable
Supreme Court that there should be an application of mind to the nature
of complaint and involvement of appellant in the criminal case, the
learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order impugned in
the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside and that the matter may be
remanded to the third respondent for fresh consideration in the light of
the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court.
7.As pointed out by this Court as well as the Honourable
Supreme Court, particularly, in the case of Avtar Singh vs Union of
India and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, the third respondent
may consider the antecedents and suitability of the appellant
independently based on the facts that are available. In this case, the
appellant was ultimately acquitted by the criminal Court. The verdict of
the criminal Court has to be considered whether the appellant was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.640 of 2022
honourably acquitted. The findings of the Criminal Court clearly indicate
that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the criminal case.
However, it is open to the third respondent to consider the suitability of
the appellant and it is for the third respondent to consider the same in
the light of the rules interpreted by this Court as well as the Honourable
Supreme Court in several cases. Even when a criminal case is pending,
the authority has to be satisfied whether the candidate's character and
antecedents are such as to qualify him for service.
8.The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner
of Police vs Raj Kumar, in Civil Appeal No.4960/2021, the
Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“29. Public service - like any other, pre-supposes that the state
employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its
service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as
qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a
candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of
each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial
review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms
are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner.
However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the
public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is
neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.
30. The High Court’s approach, evident from its observations about the
youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general
acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour.
The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour
should not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural
setting. This court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to
condonation of the offender’s conduct, should not enter the judicial
verdict and should be avoided. Certain types of offences, like molestation
of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.640 of 2022
hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can
also be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour. Each case is to be
scrutinized by the concerned public employer, through its designated
officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are
under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability
to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.”
9.Since there should be subjective consideration of the
suitability based on the antecedents, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order rejecting the candidature of the appellant on the ground
of suppression of material facts cannot be sustained. Since the Criminal
Court has now acquitted the appellant, the question whether the
acquittal was honorary acquittal or not shall also be considered.
10.For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Appeal is allowed and
the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.916 of 2022, dated
11.01.2022 as well as the order impugned in the Writ Petition are set
aside and the matter is remanded to the third respondent to consider the
suitability of the appellant in terms of the rules as interpreted by the
Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court in several cases and
pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No
costs.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
30.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.640 of 2022
To
1.The Director General of Police,
State Head Quarters Office, Chennai-4.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram,
4.The Inspector of Police,
Nainarkoil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.640 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
cmr
W.A(MD)No.640 of 2022
30.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
