P.T. Vasantharajan vs The Director General Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 1252 Mad

                                                                              W.P.No.26583 of 2017


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 01.02.2023

                                                        CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

                                               W.P.No.26583 of 2017
                                            and W.M.P.No.28299 of 2017

                    P.T. Vasantharajan                                        ... Petitioner
                                                         Vs.
                    1.The Director General of Police,
                      Kamarajar Salai,
                      Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

                    2.The Chairman,
                      Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,
                      Recruitment Board,
                      Anna Salai, Chennai.

                    3.The Superintendent of Police,
                      Erode District,
                      Erode.                                                  ... Respondents


                    Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                    praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
                    pertaining      to the order dated 03.10.2017 under proceedings in
                    Na.Ka.No.A2/10882/2017 passed by the third respondent, quash the same
                    and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a
                    Grade-II Police Constables pursuant to the selection made by virtue of the


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                    1/8
                                                                                    W.P.No.26583 of 2017


                    selection year 2017 issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
                    Recruitment Board for recruitment to the post of Grade-II Constables 2017.
                                    For Petitioner     : Mr.L. Chandrakumar
                                                         for M/s.P.T. Ramadevi

                                    For Respondents : Mr.P. Kumaresan,
                                                      Additional Advocate General
                                                      Assisted by Mr.T. Chezhiyan,
                                                      Additional Government Pleader


                                                         ORDER

The petitioner herein had participated in the selection process for the

year 2017 for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. Prior to the

notification, he was involved in a criminal case in SC.No.104 of 2012 in the

Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, for an offence under

Section 366(A) of Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 19.04.2013, the

petitioner who was arrayed as a second accused was acquitted of a criminal

charges. The fact of his involvement in a criminal case was disclosed by

the petitioner in his application. Though the petitioner herein had

successfully passed in the written test, physical test and medical test and

obtained total marks of 75 out of 100, his candidature was rejected by the

third respondent through his impugned order dated 03.10.2017 by stating

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

W.P.No.26583 of 2017

that since the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charge on benefit

of doubt, he is not entitled for appointment in view of Rule 13(e) of the

Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. Challenging the

same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

though the Sessions Court had used the phrase 'benefit of doubt', the

judgment would reflect that he was honourably acquitted and in view of the

Rules governing the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board

(TNUSRB), such an honourable acquittal will not be an impediment for

selection process.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for

the respondents placed reliance on a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of 'Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & others'

reported in '2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300' and submitted that since the

police force is a disciplinary force and the judgment of the Criminal Court

had acquitted the petitioner on benefit of doubt, there is no infirmity in the

reasoning adopted in the impugned order.

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

W.P.No.26583 of 2017

4. This issue on the entitlement of the candidate to seek for

appointment in view of his acquittal in a criminal case has been a subject

matter of discussion in various decisions of the Hon'be Supreme Court, as

well as this Court. In the earliest case, in 'Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India'

reported in '(2016) 8 SCC 471', it was held as follows:-

...... “38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee......” (emphasis supplied)

5. In the case of 'Satish Chandra Yadav' (supra), it was held that in

other latest decision in the case of 'Union of India & others Vs. Methu

Meda' reported in '(2022) 1 SCC 1', the decision in 'Avtar Singh' (supra),

as well as the various decisions were taken into account by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and ultimately, it was held as follows:-

..... “17. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, as per paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5 of Avtar Singh case, it is

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

W.P.No.26583 of 2017

clear that the employer is having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment. Acquittal on technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even in case, truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made by the employee, still the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate......” (emphasis supplied)

6. In all the aforesaid decisions, the object of the ratio laid down

therein, is that the judgment in the criminal case requires to be examined to

see whether the candidate has been completely exonerated in the case, the

nature of the offence, the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal

was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt, because the

witnesses turned hostile or of some other serious flaw in the prosecution

and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future.

This exercise ought to be adopted by the Screening Committee.

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

W.P.No.26583 of 2017

7. In the instant case, the third respondent herein is stated to be the

One Man Screening Committee. Unfortunately, in the impugned order

dated 03.10.2017, the third respondent seems to have extracted a stray

sentence from the judgment of acquittal and had come to the conclusion that

he was acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., on benefit of doubt. On the

other hand, the Sessions Court seems to have deliberated on the evidences

let in before it and thereby, had come to the conclusion that the offence

under Section 366(A) IPC was not made out and on that basis, seems to

have acquitted the petitioner herein, as well as the other accused. In view

of this, the reason for rejection of the petitioner's candidature may not be

appropriate and which may require re-consideration by the One Man

Screening Committee, namely, the third respondent herein.

8. Since the petitioner was fully qualified in the selection process

held in 2017 and is now said to have crossed the upper age limit, such

consideration by the third respondent herein, shall be without reference to

the upper age limit.

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

W.P.No.26583 of 2017

9. In the light of the above observations, the impugned order dated

03.10.2017 passed by the third respondent, is quashed and the matter is

remitted back to the third respondent herein for fresh consideration. The

third respondent shall give a detailed consideration of the judgment passed

in SC.No.104 of 2012 and thereby, come to a subjective satisfaction, as to

whether the acquittal was on benefit of doubt or otherwise and thereafter,

pass fresh orders in accordance with the decision stated supra. Such an

exercise of consideration and passing of orders shall be made atleast within

a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs.

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

01.02.2023 Speaking/Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

Sni

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

W.P.No.26583 of 2017

M.S.RAMESH,J.

Sni

To

1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode.

W.P.No.26583 of 2017

01.02.2023

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