High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN
D. Mahadevan
Versus
The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
Writ Petition No.976 of 2008
Decied on : 14-03-2008
(PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.134857/Appointment 2(1)/2007 dated 312. 2007, declaring the petitioner unfit for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police (Men) for the year 2006, quash the same and direct the respondent herein to appoint the petitioner as Sub-inspector of Police (Men) for the year 2006 with effect from 112. 2007 with all consequential monetary and service benefits.)
Petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 12. 2003. He applied for appointment as Sub Inspector of Police when the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board notified the vacancies. The petitioner had come out successfully in the physical efficiency test, written test and viva voce test. He had secured 75% marks and therefore, according to him, he was fully qualified to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police. However, he was involved in Crime No.118 of 1999 and the question in this writ petition is, whether this will affect his appointment.
2. The relevant facts to be noted are as follows:
On 14. 1999, the Sub Inspector of Police, Wallajahbad registered Crime No.118 of 1999 against the petitioner and two others under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet was filed and the case was taken up for trial in C.C. No.263 of 1999. After a detailed trial, on 210. 2003, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said acquittal has become final. The petitioner had not mentioned in his application form that he had been involved as an accused in a criminal case when he got appointed as Grade-II Police Constable. Therefore, he was issued with a charge memo in P.R.24 of 2005 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. The charge was that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of his involvement as an accused in the criminal case and had furnished a false declaration in the verification roll and had secured the appointment. An oral enquiry was conducted and the petitioner gave his explanation that the criminal case had ended in an acquittal on 210. 2003 and his appointment was subsequent on 12. 2003 and therefore, there was no suppression. On 3. 2006, the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police II Batallion passed final orders imposing the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for two years without cumulative effect and the petitioner is well nearing completion of suffering the punishment.
3. On 112. 2007, the respondent passed an order in Na.Ka.No. 134857/Appt.2(1)/2007 that since the petitioner had suppressed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case, he is ineligible to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police. On 312. 2007, the respondent again passed another order in the same proceedings stating that the earlier order dated 112. 2007 was incorrect and that the petitioner had not suppressed the fact that he was involved in the criminal case. But however, the respondent, by his impugned order, held that the petitioner cannot be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police as per Rule 13(b) of the Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules which provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment "unless he satisfies the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such to qualify him for such service". Against this order, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner admittedly did not mention his involvement in the criminal case when he had applied for the post of Constable, but that was because he was under the bona fide impression that since he had got acquitted by then, it was not necessary to mention it and after appointment, he had faced disciplinary proceedings and he had been pu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.