An acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not equate to an honourable acquittal, affecting eligibility for police service recruitment.

ORDER :

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the records from the respondent relating to the order dated 09.03.2020 bearing reference No.C.No.A4/14450/2019 holding that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as Grade II Police Constable as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and to consequently direct the respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner as Grade II Police constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Police based on the selection list published by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai – 8 for the year 2019 protecting his seniority based on the rank he obtained in the selection, pay salary from the date the candidates selected along with him were given posting order, treat him as being in service from that date and subsequent promotions given to others.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has applied for Grade-II Police Constable, called for by the Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board. He has also allotted enrollment number viz., 0507836. Subsequently, the petitioner has cleared the written test followed by physical measurement, endurance, physical efficiency test. After verifying the original certificates on 30.11.2019, the petitioner got selected for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. This being the case, the respondent vide reference No.C.No.A4/14450/2019 dated 09.03.2020 denied the employment to the petitioner holding that he was involved in a criminal case viz., C.C.No.39 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti. Aggrieved over the said order dated 09.03.2020, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the criminal case in C.C.No.39 of 2016 has ended in acquittal, the respondent have not taken the same into consideration since the witnesses have turned hostile and the impugned action of the respondent is untenable and the same is contrary to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to family disputes between the relatives, the de-facto complainant lodged an FIR before Pudupettai Police Station by making false allegation as if he was assaulted and the petitioner was also mentioned as A9 in the FIR. The said criminal case was on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti as C.C.No.39 of 2016. Since the complainant was aware that he has given false complaint, his evidence did not support the prosecution case and as a result, the complainant was treated as hostile. Moreover, the other witnesses viz., P.W.2 to P.W.6 also did not support the case of the prosecution and they have also turned hostile. Since the prosecution failed to get reliable evidence from the witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate concluded the case that there is no cogent and acceptable evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the case and passed an order of acquittal by extending benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons including the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that it is a settled principle that even if the witnesses turned hostile, still the Court can convict the accused based on the evidence of the Investigation Officer, if the charges are proved. Since there was no evidence to prove the charges, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the accused.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has cleared all the test. As he had came out successful in all the tests, further step of Police Verification was taken up. He was given a form called Verification Roll form and asked to fill up all the column and he has answered all the columns. At the time of Police Verification, about his previous character and antecedents i.e., before the date of recruitment, it was found that he was involved in a criminal case in Pudupet Police Station in Cr.No.19 of 2016 under Section 147, 148, 294