Madras High Court
The Member Secretary vs A.Jayamoorthi on 20 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.09.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1054 of 2020
and C.M.P. No.12943 of 2020
1.The Member Secretary,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
No.807, P.T.Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Building,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Additional Director General of Police
(Training),
O/o the Director General of Police,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Cuddalore District. ..Appellants
vs
A.Jayamoorthi ..Respondent
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 15.02.2019 made in W.P.No.6272 of 2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
For Appellants : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mrs.P.Raja Rajeswari
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.C.Prakasam
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 15.02.2019 made in W.P.No.6272 of 2013 in and
by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondent herein thereby quashing the order dated 24.12.2012 and
directing the appellants herein to take a decision in the case of the writ
petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal
has been filed.
2. Heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate
General for the appellants and Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that
this is a case where the writ petitioner had suppressed the information
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
about the criminal case even in the questionnaire form issued to him
and for the question “Have you ever been concerned in any Criminal
Case as defendant?”, he has answered 'NO'. In view thereof and since
the petitioner was involved in Crime No.151 of 2011 on the file of
Kadampuliyur police station in which he was subsequently tried and
acquitted by the judgment dated 30.08.2012 by the Judicial Magistrate
II, Panruti only by giving benefit of doubt, the suppression of the
information as well as the involvement of the case dis-entitles him for
employment and therefore the learned single Judge erred in allowing
the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent would submit that this case is arising out of the quarrel
between the neighbours in respect of the dispute which arises on
account of placing the hen coop near the house of the respondent.
Absolutely, no case whatsoever was made out for offence either under
Sections 324 or 506 (ii) IPC. However, when the parties filed
application for compounding the offence, the same was rejected and
thereafter during the course of trial, the witnesses did not support the
case of the prosecution and therefore on the basis that there was
absolutely no material whatsoever to convict the respondent, the trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court acquitted him. The judgment of the criminal Court has to be
read in toto and it cannot be said that the respondent was acquitted by
giving the benefit of doubt. This apart, in respect of the question in the
questionnaire requiring information whether he was the defendant in
any criminal case, the respondent has answered 'NO' as the case had
already ended in acquittal. If the facts of the criminal case are gone
into in detail, it cannot be considered as a ground for denying
employment in the Disciplined Force. Learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that taking into consideration the above said
facts and the nature of the case, the learned Single Judge has passed
an order in detail.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made on either
side and perused the materials of the case.
6. The learned Single Judge after considering the order
impugned in the writ petition dated 24.12.2012 whereby the
appellants never applied their mind in respect of the nature of the
offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent, relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Avtar
Singh v Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and considering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the facts of the criminal case, which ultimately ended in compromise
between the neighbours, resulting in judgment of acquittal, exercised
discretion in favour of the respondent. There was absolutely no
application of mind whatsoever on the part of the appellants with
respect to the nature of the offence said to have been committed by
the respondent. Keeping in view the limited scope of interference
under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, we are of the view that the order of
learned Single Judge exercising discretion in favour of the respondent
does not call for any interference as we have also gone through the
FIR in Crime No.151 of 2011 and the judgment of the criminal Court
dated 30.08.2012.
7. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ appeal.
Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
20.09.2022
Index:No
ssm/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
ssm
W.A.No.1054 of 2020
20.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
