SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

K. Venkatesan vs 3 The Superintendent Of Police on 23 January, 2020

W.P.No.30381 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.01.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.No.30381 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.33121 of 2017

1 K. Venkatesan
S/o. Krishnan,
Reddypatty Village,
Uthankarai Post Taluk,
Krishnagiri District. … PETITIONER

Vs.

1 The Director General of police,
Head of Police Force,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004

2 The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,
Recruitment Board (USRB) Rep. by
its Member Secretary,
Egmore Chennai 600 008

3 The Superintendent of Police
Krishnagiri District … RESPONDENTS

Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the impugned order of rejection of appointment of the petitioner dated
12.10.2017 vide in Na.Ka.No.A2/15484/Oo.Va.05/2017 passed by the 3rd
respondent herein and quash the same consequently direct the respondents
to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Police Constable (TSP-PC) or Grade II
Jail Warders or Firemen forthwith.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
W.P.No.30381 of 2017

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ramesh, A.G.P.

******

ORDER

Pursuant to the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed

Services Recruitment Board, Chennai for the year 2017, the petitioner had

applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable. The petitioner secured 57

marks in written examination and 15 marks in physical examination making

a total of 72 marks and he was declared provisionally selected by the

second respondent for the post of TSP-PC as per the results published in the

website. Under these circumstances, the third respondent vide his letter,

dated 12.10.2017 rejected his selection on the ground of suppression of

criminal case pending against him. According to the petitioner, the

petitioner honestly disclosed the particulars of pendency of criminal case

registered against him in Cr.No.186 of 2013 of Uthankarai Police Station for

the alleged offence under Section 147, 148 and 341 of I.P.C. r/w Sec.3 of

Tamil nadu Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. However, Crime

number has been wrongly mentioned as Cr.No.186 of 2013 instead of correct

Cr.No.184 of 2013 of Uthankarai Police Station. Therefore, the petitioner

approached this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the third

respondent, dated 12.10.2017.

http://www.judis.nic.in
2/10
W.P.No.30381 of 2017

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

the third respondent has not applied his mind independently while

considering the application of the petitioner. The petitioner honestly

disclosed the pendency of criminal case in the relevant column of the

application. The third respondent passed the impugned order without

giving an opportunity to the petitioner and rejected his candidature for

appointment in a mechanical manner. Even though proceedings initiated

under Section 110 (a) of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.174 of 2015 of Uthankarai Police

Station is only a preventive measures taken by the Police to maintain peace

and tranquility in the area and therefore, it is not a serious criminal

offence. On receipt of rejection letter from the third respondent, the

petitioner submitted a representation to the third respondent stating that

he was falsely implicated in Cr.No.184 of 2013 of Uthankarai Police Station.

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. The third respondent filed counter affidavit wherein it is

stated that as per Rule 14 (b) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate

Service Rules, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service

by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that

(i) he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or

http://www.judis.nic.in
3/10
W.P.No.30381 of 2017

infirmity unfitting him for such service and

(ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to quality him for

such service; and

(iii) that he has not involved in any criminal case before police

verification.

Explanation (1) : a person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of

doubt or due to the fact that the complainant 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 treated as a mistake of fact shall be

treated as not involved in criminal case and he can claim right for

appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.

Further, it is stated that as per rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Tamilnadu Special

Police Subordinate Service Rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or

discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for

selection to the police service of the State and that the same cannot be

termed as illegal or unjustified; and that in the event of failure of a person

to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case

or the pendency of a criminal case against him, the appointing authority

can reject his application on the ground of suppression of material fact.

http://www.judis.nic.in
4/10
W.P.No.30381 of 2017

On verification, it was found that the petitioner is involved in the following

criminal cases:

(1) Cr.No.184 of 2013 – U/Sec. 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) of I.P.C. r/w Sec.

3(1), 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 of
Uthankarai Police Station wherein charge sheet filed and taken on
file as P.R.C.No.15 of 2013 and pending before the trial Court.

(2) Cr.No.174 of 2014 – U/Sec. 110(a) Cr.P.C. is pending against the
petitioner.

Therefore, the third respondent rejected the petitioner’s provisional

selection vide Na.Ka.No.A2/15484 / C.No.05/2017, dated 12.10.2017 and

the same was communicated to the petitioner. It is relevant to state that

he is shows as Accused No.16 in Cr.No.184 of 2013 and the petitioner is PMK

party sympathizer and his verification report on his character and

antecedents are not satisfactory. Therefore, as per Rule 14(b) (iv) of

Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service rules, the writ petitioner is

not entitled for appointment and hence, the third respondent has rightly

cancelled the selection of the petitioner.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with an identical

issue in State of M.P. Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar [2018 (6) CTC 659 2018

(18) SCC 733, the Hon’ble Surpeme Court settled the proposition of law

that the employer is still have the right to consider the antecedents and

http://www.judis.nic.in
5/10
W.P.No.30381 of 2017

the suitability of the candidate and held as under:

”14. In the present case, as on the date when the
respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending
against him. Compromise was entered into only after an
affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue
of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal
under Section 320(8) CrPC, the law declared by this
Court in Mehar Singh [Commr. of Police v.Mehar
Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 :
(2013) 2 SCC (LS) 910], specially in paras 34 and 35
completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure
is made by a candidate, the employer would be well
within his rights to consider the antecedents and the
suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the
employer can certainly take into account the job profile
for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the
charges levelled against the candidate and whether the
acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was
merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of
composition.

15. The reliance placed by Mr Dave, learned Amicus
Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohd. Imran
[Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No.
10571 of 2018, order dated 12-10-2018 (SC)] is not quite
correct and said decision cannot be of any assistance to
the respondent. In para 5 of the said decision, this Court
had found that the only allegation against the appellant
therein was that he was travelling in an autorickshaw
which was following the autorickshaw in which the prime
accused, who was charged under Section 376 IPC, was
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/10
W.P.No.30381 of 2017

travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all the
accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support
the allegation. The decision in Mohd. Imran [Mohd.
Imran v. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No. 10571
of 2018, order dated 12-10-2018 (SC)] thus turned on
individual facts and cannot in any way be said to have
departed from the line of decisions rendered by this Court
in Mehar Singh [Commr. of Police v.Mehar Singh,
(2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2
SCC (LS) 910] , Parvez Khan[State of M.P.v.Parvez
Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 : (2015) 1 SCC (LS) 544] and
Pradeep Kumar [UT, Chandigarh Admn. v. Pradeep
Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 504 :
(2018) 1 SCC (LS) 149] .

16. We must observe at this stage that there is
nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by
the authorities concerned in rejecting the candidature of
the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or
suffered on any other count. The decision on the question
of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view,
was absolutely correct and did not call for any
interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside
the decisions rendered by the Single Judge [Abhijit Singh
Pawar v.State of M.P., WP No. 9412 of 2013, order dated
31-7-2014 (MP)] as well as by the Division Bench [State
of M.P.v.Abhijit Singh Pawar, 2015 SCC OnLine MP
7517] and dismiss Writ Petition No. 9412 of 2013
preferred by the respondent. No costs.”

http://www.judis.nic.in
7/10
W.P.No.30381 of 2017

5. Petitioner sought for appointment in the Police department.

The petitioner must possess the required qualification, honesty integrity

and also have a clean record having good antecedents and character.

Admittedly, the petitioner involved in two criminal cases viz., (1) Cr.No.184

of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sec. 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) of I.P.C.

r/w Sec. 3(1), 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 of

Uthankarai Police Station wherein charge sheet was filed and taken on file

as P.R.C.No.15 of 2013 (2) Cr.No.174 of 2014 for the alleged offences

under Sec.110(a) Cr.P.C. Both cases are pending against the petitioner

before the trial Court. It is relevant to extract here Sec.110 (a) of Cr.P.C.

as follows:

110. Security for good behaviour from habitual
offenders
When an Executive Magistrate receives information
that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who—

(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or”

6. Considering the serious nature of the criminal case registered

against the petitioner and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Abhijit Singh Pawar (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Surpeme Court

settled the proposition of law that the employer is have the right to

consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate for

appointment, there is no scope for interference with the order, dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
8/10
W.P.No.30381 of 2017

12.10.2017 passed by the third respondent. Therefore, this Court cannot

direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Police

Constable, Grade II.

7. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23.01.2020

Speaking / Non-Speaking order
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
vaan
To
1 The Director General of police,
Head of Police Force, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004

2 The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (USRB),
Egmore Chennai 600 008

3 The Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District

http://www.judis.nic.in
9/10
W.P.No.30381 of 2017

D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.

vaan

W.P.No.30381 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.33121 of 2017

Dated: 23.01.2020

http://www.judis.nic.in
10/10

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation