IMPORTANT POINT
The employer has the discretion to consider the nature of the offence, the impact of acquittal, and the overall suitability of the candidate for employment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 09.10.2017, thereby rejected the candidature of the petitioners to the post of Grade II Police Constable.

2. Both the petitioners are brothers. They had applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 2017. They had qualified in the written examination and they were selected for physical and medical fitness. Thereafter they were provisionally selected. However, on verification of certificate and conduct verification, it was found that the petitioners were involved in criminal case in Crime No.184 of 2014 registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 452, 323, 506(i) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act. They were acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, in C.C.No.24 of 2016 by an order dated 24.05.2016, on the ground that the defacto complainant turned hostile. Therefore, as per the circular issued by the first respondent their candidature were rejected.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners categorically mentioned about the criminal case in their applications. The complaint was lodged by his own cousin of the petitioners due to the dispute between two ladies, in which the petitioners being brothers of the same family, they were falsely implicated as accused. Subsequently, though the Investigating Officer completed investigation and filed final report, the defacto complainant himself categorically deposed that no occurrence was taken place and false case has been foisted as against the petitioners. Therefore, they were acquitted by an order dated 24.05.2016. In fact, their acquittal was also declared as honourable acquittal in Crl.O.P.No.70 of 2019 by an order dated 03.01.2019, by this Court. Even then, without considering the same the candidature of the petitioners were mechanically rejected by the third respondent. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) W.P. (MD) No.11930 of 2020 dated 09.04.2021 in the case of M.Sivan Sakthi Vs. the Director General of Police & ors.

(ii) W.P. (MD).No.1145 of 2010 dated 26.03.2013 in the case of C.Vijayaraja Vs. The Director General of Police.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioners were acquitted by the criminal Court only on the ground that the defacto complainant turned hostile and it would not amount to honourable acquittal by the criminal Court. The petitioners were acquitted only on the ground of benefits of doubt. When the petitioners involved in a criminal case, they are not fit to be appointed as Police Constable. He also produced the government order in G.O.Ms.No.882 Home (Pol.VI) Department dated 12.06.2007, in which sub Rule (d) of Rule 13 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services was amended and as per explanation No.1, a person who is acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case. As per explanation No.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 or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners suppressed the fact that they were involved in the criminal case. The petitioners were categorically mentioned in their applications about the criminal case and the order of acquittal in C.C.No.24 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Panruti, dated 24.05.2016. That apart, one of the petitioners filed direction petition before this Court in Crl.O.P