IMPORTANT POINTS
The petitioner cannot be kept away from training merely for reason of the pending criminal case. We hence direct the State Police Chief to decide on the petitioners suitability by a reasoned order after making sufficient enquiries about the criminal case pending as also the antecedents of the petitioner. An order shall be passed within a month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. If the State Police Chief or an officer or committee authorised by him, is satisfied that the petitioner can be sent for training, it shall be done along with the next batch of appointees. The petitioner shall be informed of the same and he shall present himself before the appropriate authority for examination of the physical attributes.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chandran, J.

The original petition is filed against the judgment of the Tribunal which rejected the claim of the applicant to send him for training for the purpose of appointment as Police Constable in the Kerala Armed Police Battalion-IV. The petitioner's claim was rejected for the reason that he was involved in a criminal case. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Anil Kumar A. v. State of Kerala and Others [2012 (2) KHC 257 (DB)].

2. In the aforesaid decision a Division Bench of this Court held that if a person is ultimately found guilty of the offence charged against him, it would definitely lead to his being disentitled for appointment to the Force. In such circumstances, since police training involves training in arms and ammunition it would result in a criminal imparted with such training being let loose into the society.

3. The facts arising in the decision were prior to Section 86(2) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 which was extracted by the Tribunal, which we also extract here under:

“A person against whom a criminal case for an offence involving proclivity of violence or moral turpitude is pending before a Court of law shall be entitled to appear for recruitment, to get selected and to undergo training, but shall be entitled for permanent appointment only after being acquitted.”

The Tribunal, however, felt that since the decision of the High Court is otherwise, there can be no direction issued to the applicant.

4. The statutory provision clearly enables a person selected to be sent for training and the bar is only in the appointment being kept in abeyance till the criminal case is concluded. On conclusion of the case if the applicant is found guilty, then definitely there could be no appointment made.

5. We have looked at the Division Bench decision relied on by the Tribunal in Anil Kumar and the decision of the learned Single Judge reported in Suresh v. Public Service Commission [2008 (2) KLT 441], which was overruled by the Division Bench. Suresh (supra) considered, almost a similar situation, where the appointment of persons to various services though advised by the PSC, was interdicted by the Government for reason of pending criminal cases. The leading case, the facts of which were noticed by the learned Single Judge was an identical one, in which the petitioner sought for training as Police Constable (PC) pursuant to his appointment to the post of Driver/PC. The pending criminal case, which was alleged against the petitioner as the ground for refusing to deputing for training, was with respect to a motor vehicle accident.

6. The Government specifically referred to Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part-II of K.S.&S.S.R to argue that the State Government is not obliged to make an appointment even after a due selection process, without verifying the character and antecedents of the candidate, as to whether he qualifies to be appointed to such service. Conceding such power, the learned Single Judge held that there could be no refusal to appoint merely on the fact of a pending criminal case. It was held that the pendency of a criminal case cannot be considered to be a totally irrelevant factor, when the Government considers, the character and antecedents of a candidate to verify whether he qualifies to the service to which he is sought to be appointed, under Rule 10(b) (iii). The learned Single Judge noticed Mansarudeen v. K.S.EB [1994 (1) KLT 603], in which a Division Bench held that mere pendency of a criminal case, arising from civil disputes is not a valid ground to hold that the candidate is disqualified for appointment to any service. Obviously the Court was of the opinion that the mere fact of a pending criminal case would not cast a slur on the character and antecedents of a person so as to disqualify him from any service under the Government. Christopher Jose v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 285] was referred to in support of the stand of the petitioner that mere pendency of a criminal case should not be trea