The impact of acquittal in a criminal case on appointments, considering the seriousness of the case and the Supreme Court's decision in Avtar Singh case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Na. Ka.No. A2/5178/2021 dated 08.07.2021 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector.)

1. The petitioner, challenging the impugned order of rejection dated 8.07.2021 passed by the third respondent, has filed the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner has applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable in pursuant to notification issued by the respondent in the year 2019, qualified in the written examination, Physical Endurance Test and he got provisionally selected for the said post. However, to his shock and surprise, the second respondent has passed the impugned order of rejection dated 8.07.2021 on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the involvement in the criminal case in Crime No.187/2016 for the commission of offences under Sections 376, 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. and Sec.6 of POCSO Act. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, vide judgment dated 23.07.2018 in SC.No.16/2018 on the file of the Sessions/Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai and the said judgment was delivered before the notification and therefore, there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner on the date of submitting application by the petitioner and therefore, there is no legal impediment for the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable and prays for quashing of the impugned order of rejection.

4. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents submits that at the time of submitting the application, the petitioner has not disclosed about his involvement in the criminal case in the relevant column of the application submitted for the post of Grade II Police Constable. As per Rule 14(b) (ii) & (iv) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service, a candidate being selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable should not involved in any criminal case and having good character. The judgment of acquittal has been passed only on benefit of doubt and therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 2019.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made and also perused the materials available on record.

6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the criminal case in S.C.No.16 of 2018 on the file of Sessions Court/Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai for the commission of offence under Sec.376, 354, 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. and Sec.4 & 8 of POCSO Act 2012 was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 23.07.2018. The judgment passed by the Sessions Court on the basis of benefit of doubt and considering the antecedents of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. According to the petitioner, in the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner was arrayed as A2 for the offence under Sec.294(b) and 506 (i) of I.P.C. Alone, whereas in respect of A-1, the case was registered for the offence under Sec.376, 354, 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. and Sec.4 & 8 of POCSO Act 2012 and therefore, there is no legal embargo to consider the petitioner's name for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable. However, it is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner has suppressed the involvement in the criminal case and further, the acquittal in the criminal case on the ground of benefit of doubt cannot be a ground to claim appointment.

7. This Court in W.P.No.31601 of 2017 has dealt with an identical issue and the relevant portion of the order, dated 09.01.2020, are extracted hereunder:

“7.The Division Bench of this Court in an identical issue in W.A.Nos