Madras High Court
S.Sathiyaraj vs / on 5 August, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)No.11534 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.11534 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.10504 & 10505 of 2018
S.Sathiyaraj ... Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,
No.807, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai.
3.The Additional Director General of Police,
O/o.The Additional Director General of Police,
Inspector General of Prisons,
Egmore, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order in No.3583./EW.1/2017-2 in dated
17.05.2018 on the file of respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner for
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.11534 of 2018
the post of Tamil Nadu Police Constable Grade II/Jail Warden/Firemen
for the year 2017 within the time period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthik
for M/s.S.Rajasekar &
Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman
For Respondents : Mr.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
17.05.2018 passed by the third respondent rejecting the plea of the
petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade II Jail Warden.
2. The third respondent, in the impugned order had reconsidered
the petitioner's plea, pursuant to the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by
this Court in WP(MD)No.22632 of 2017. This Court, by the aforesaid
order, passed in the aforesaid writ petition, had directed the third
respondent to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to his plea
for appointment to the post of Grade II Jail Warden for the year 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
said order.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
the circumstance under which the petitioner's plea has been rejected will
not fall within the circumstance as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2016 (8)
SCC 471 for the purpose of rejecting the plea of the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Grade II Jail Warden.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further
submit that the FIR registered against the petitioner based on a complaint
lodged by the family members of his wife is a trivial case and
subsequently, the criminal case registered against the petitioner had also
ended in acquittal by giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner and
therefore, the plea of the petitioner seeking for appointment to the post of
Grade II Jail Warden ought to have been granted by the third respondent.
He also drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order passed by
the third respondent and would submit that without considering the fact
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the criminal case lodged against the petitioner had ended in acquittal
by giving benefit of doubt to him and the case involved is a trivial case,
the third respondent has once again reiterated the earlier order passed by
them, which was the subject matter of the earlier writ petition namely,
WP(MD)No.22632 of 2017.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied
upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.06.2023
rendered in a batch of writ appeals in WA(MD)Nos.938 of 2020 batch
and he would submit that while rejecting the petitioner's plea for
appointment, the respondents ought to have taken into consideration the
gravity of the offence. According to him, the same was not taken into
consideration by the third respondent, while rejecting the petitioner's plea
seeking for appointment to the post of Grade II Jail Warden.
6. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit filed
by the respondents before this Court. She also drew the attention of this
Court to the Rule, which has been extracted in the counter affidavit filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the third respondent in paragraph number 6 and would submit that
only in accordance with the said Rule and its Explanations, the
petitioner's plea for appointment to the post of Grade II Jail Warden has
been rejected. She would submit that as per the Explanation I of the
aforesaid rule, it is clear that even if a person is acquitted or discharged
on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile,
he shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case. According to
her, since the petitioner has been registered with a case in Crime No.145
of 2013 under Sections 147, 341, 294 (b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w
Section 3(1) of SC/ST(POA) Act and those being heinous offences, the
petitioner's plea has been rightly rejected under the impugned order.
7. Rule 6 (f) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Jail
Subordinate Service reads as follows:-
“6.Other qualifications.—No person shall be eligible
for appointment to the posts and by the method specified in
column (1) and (2) of the Annexure unless he possess the
qualifications specified in the corresponding entries in column
(3) thereof:-
..........
ANNEXURE
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(referred to in rule 6)
Post Method of Qualification
Recruitment
........ ........ .......
Warders in Direct ........
Central, recruitment (f) A person has not involved
District and in any criminal case before
Special Jails, police verification.
Special Sub- Explanation(1).—A person
Jails and who is acquitted or discharged
Petty Officers on benefit of doubt or due to
in Borstal the fact that the complainant
School - turned hostile, shall be treated
as a person involved in a
criminal case.
Explanation(2).—A person
involved in a criminal case at
the time of police verification
and the case yet to be
disposed of and subsequently
ended in honourable acquittal
or treated as mistake of fact
shall be treated as not
involved in a criminal case
and he can claim right for
appointment only by
participating in the next
recruitment.
8. Explanation I to the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that even if a
person is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact
that the complainant turned hostile, he shall be treated as a person
involved in a criminal case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner was acquitted only
by giving benefit of doubt to him. The complainant had also turned
hostile and had withdrawn the complaint. Only under those
circumstances, the Criminal Court had acquitted the petitioner. The
offences registered against the petitioner are serious in nature. The
petitioner was admittedly charged with the offences under Sections 147,
341, 294 (b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 3(i) of SC/ST(POA)
Act.
10. In the impugned order, the third respondent has taken into
consideration the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
including the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar
Singh's case cited supra, which had laid down the guidelines with regard
to the circumstances, under which stringent action could be taken by the
employer against the employee by exercising its discretion. In the
impugned order, the third respondent has also extracted the relevant
portion in Avtar Singh's case cited supra, which is reproduced
hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“38. 5. In a case where the employee has made
declaration turthfully of a concluded criminal case, the
employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and
cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.”
11. In paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, the third respondent
has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was involved
in a criminal case and due to the same, the petitioner would not fit into
the disciplined force, where every member is expected to honestly and
sincerely report the information coming to their knowledge in the public
interest.
12. The third respondent has also observed in the impugned order
that the members of the Department are entrusted with an important
responsibility of upholding the rule of law, maintenance of prison
security, prevention of crime etc., The bad antecedents of the petitioner
were considered by the third respondent and only thereafter, the third
respondent has rejected the plea of the petitioner to be appointed to the
post of Grade II Jail Warden.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner rendered recently by this Court in a batch of writ appeals in
WA(MD)Nos.938 of 2020 batch, is not applicable to the present case,
since the decision was rendered only recently subsequent to passing of
the impugned order and further, the criminal case registered against the
petitioner cannot be treated to be a trivial case. This Court does not find
any infirmity in the findings rendered by the third respondent in the
impugned order.
14. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition and this writ
petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.08.2024
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Sm
TO:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home (Police) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board,
No.807, 2nd Floor,
Anna Salai, Chennai.
3.The Additional Director General of Police,
O/o.The Additional Director General of Police,
Inspector General of Prisons,
Egmore, Chennai.
Order made in
Dated:
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
