Madras High Court
S.Senthilkumar vs The Director General Of Police on 2 January, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.9667 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.9667 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.9408 of 2022
S.Senthilkumar ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Director General of Police,
Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Chairman-cum-Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
City Police Office,
Salem City. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent herein in his proceeding
RC.No.67837/Rect.2(1)/2016 dated 06.08.2020 and quash the same and
consequently issue a direction directing the Respondent herein to confirm
the provisional selection of the Petitioner and appoint the Petitioner as
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9667 of 2022
Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk) for the year 2015, without reference to
the criminal case registered in Cr.No.545/2004, Sooramangalam Police
Station, Salem District on par with his batch mates with all consequential
service benefits within a time frame.
For Petitioner : M/s.G.Bala and Daisy
For R1 and R3 : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Dr.T.Seenivasan
Special Government Pleader
For R2 : M/s.Arun Dattan
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
the first respondent dated 06.08.2020, thereby rejected the request made
by the petitioner seeking appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
3. The petitioner had applied to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in the year 2015. He was called for a written test. After clearing written
test, he was called to attend the physical test and interview. After clearing
the certificate verification and medical test, he was asked to fill up the
form in which he was asked to inform whether any criminal case is
pending against the petitioner. The petitioner stated 'No'. However, on
verification, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal
case in C.C.No.256 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II,
Salem. Thereafter, he was acquitted by the Judgment dated 28.10.2009
on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the case beyond any
doubt. Therefore, the petitioner was not selected by the Commissioner of
Police, Salem, who by an order dated 22.12.2015, rejected the selection
of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
4. In fact the said order was challenged before this Court in
W.P.No.3905 of 2015 and the same was dismissed by this Court by an
order dated 03.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in
Crl.O.P.No.30258 of 2018 for declaration declaring that the acquittal
order passed in C.C.No.256 of 2005 as a Hon'ble Acquittal. This Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by an order dated 21.12.2018, declared that the order of acquittal passed
by the Trial Court in C.C.No.256 of 2005 as Hon'ble Acquittal. However,
the batch of orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court were
set aside by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court which observed that
there is no question of Hon'ble Acquittal and it is not defined under any
Act. On the strength of the order passed by this Court in
Crl.O.P.No.30258 of 2018 dated 21.12.2018, once again, the petitioner
made a request to appoint him as Sub-Inspector of Police for the selection
of the year 2015. It was also rejected by the first respondent.
5. A perusal of records revealed that the petitioner was involved in
Crime No.545 of 2004 registered for the offences under Sections 147,
325 read with Sections 149, 323 and 506(2) of IPC. After completion of
investigation, the final report has been failed and the same has been taken
cognizance in C.C.No.256 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
II, Salem. However, the prosecution failed to prove its case and as such, it
ended in acquittal. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held that a
person acquitted on benefit of doubt in a criminal case, can still be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
considered as disqualified for selection to the Police Service of the State
and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified.
6. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order
passed by the first respondent and this writ petition is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
02.01.2024
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Chairman-cum-Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
City Police Office,
Salem City.
and
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
