Person acquitted on benefit of doubt to be treated as person involved in criminal case.

(Writ Appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P. No.16375 of 2004 dated 17.6.04 as stated therein.)

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

Pursuant to an advertisement, the appellant applied for recruitment to the post of Constable, Grade-II and was provisionally selected by Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). He was directed to appear on 26.8.03 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, for medical test and was found fit on such medical test. All other formalities were complied and while he was waiting for the letter of appointment, the respondent issued the impugned letter on 19.1.04 as per Rule 14 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1978) and refused to appoint the appellant on the ground of doubtful antecedent.

2. The appellant preferred W.P. No.16375/04 and brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that S.C. No.3/01 in which he was made an accused ended in his acquittal by judgment dated 30.10.01 passed by the 2nd Addl. Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli and thus the same cannot be taken into consideration by the respondents for coming to a conclusion that his antecedent is doubtful. By the impugned judgment dated 17.6.04, learned single Judge held that the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case of such a nature would disentitle him from getting appointment in the police service as per Rule 14 (b) and dismissed the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there had been a clean acquittal of the appellant and if the judgment of the trial court is noticed, this Court could come to a definite conclusion that the acquittal was not on the basis of benefit of doubt, but on merit, which could be termed as clean acquittal. Reliance was also placed on two Supreme Court decisions and a decision of the Rajasthan High Court, as discussed hereunder.

4. In the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr. – Vs – Dhaval Singh reported in 1999 (1) SCC 246, the Supreme Court noticed that the candidate for appointment as a constable put a cross-mark in the column in which he was required to give information about pendency of the criminal case, if any, against him. Later on, he voluntarily informed the authority concerned on 15.11.95 about the criminal case against him. Inspite of the same, his candidature was cancelled on 20.11.95. Having noticed that the candidate, Dhaval Singh was subsequently acquitted on merit on 8.12.95 in the criminal case and that he had voluntarily informed the authority concerned prior to cancellation of order of appointment, the Supreme Court held the order as invalid.

5. In the other case of Pawan Kumar – Vs – State of Hyderabad & Anr. Reported in AIR 1996 SC 3300. In that case, the person had already been appointed in the service of the State and having been convicted for the offence under Section 294 IPC, his services were terminated.

6. So far as the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi & 7 Ors. - Vs – State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2000 (5) SLR 659 is concerned, having noticed the relevant provision of the rule, in the facts of the case, the Rajasthan High Court held that suppression of pendency of criminal case under Sections 336 and 337 IPC cannot be held to be disqualification and the candidate should be given an opportunity to explain that the suppression was not deliberate.

7. The aforesaid case laws referred to by counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the present case as the appellant has disclosed everything including the criminal case as was lodged against him and his acquittal in such case. The judgment of the trial court was also brought to the notice of the authorities prior to the appointment. The only question that requires to be determined is whether acquittal due to grant of benefit of doubt' could be a ground to deny appointment in Tamil Nadu Police Service.

8. Admittedly, the appellant was accused