An acquittal does not guarantee fitness for appointment; past conduct and the nature of offenses must be considered, especially in law enforcement.

ORDER :

1. Challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The brief facts which gives rise to the above writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner, after obtaining a degree in Bachelor of Engineering, had applied online for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Taluk and AR)-2022. The petitioner belongs to the scheduled community. The application form contained a column as to whether any criminal case was filed against the petitioner. Since the application was made in March 2022 and the criminal case initiated against the petitioner in the year 2014 had already ended in acquittal by the trial Court in C.C.No.110 of 2014, he had stated “No” in the said coloumn. The petitioner, who was otherwise qualified, was allowed to participate in the selection process and successfully cleared the written examination, crossed all stages of the selection process and was called for certificate verification and physical examination on 23.08.2022. Thereafter, while awaiting appointment, the petitioner received the impugned order stating that his candidature was rejected on the ground that he had suppressed the criminal case filed against him. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent, inter-alia contending that the petitioner was accused of criminal intimidation by causing threat to the life of the complainant, Ravi Kumar. It appears that the petitioner along with four others had attacked the complainant, Ravi Kumar with a cricket bat, knife and bear bottle. Apart from being abused, the complainant had sustained injuries over his head and knee region due to the attack with the cricket bat. On the basis of this statement, a complaint had been lodged and all the accused including the petitioner had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai on 13.05.2014. Thereafter, a final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvannamalai on 08.07.2014. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I took cognizance of the case in C.C.No.110 of 2014 and ultimately, by judgment dated 25.03.2019 had acquitted the petitioner and other accused by granting them the “benefit of doubt”. The respondents would submit since the acquittal was not an honourable one, the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. That apart, the petitioner ought to have disclosed the criminal case in the application form. Further, is the contended that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the said fact. According to the respondents, impugned order is a well considered one and they sought to have the writ petition dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition by contending that as on the date on which the application for the post of Sub Inspector of Police was filled up, the petitioner was acquitted and therefore, there was no suppression on his part. On the other hand, he would also rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India , (2016) 8 SCC 471 .

5. Per contra, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents would submit that the coloumn in the application clearly states as to whether there was any criminal proceedings against the applicant. Admittedly, a complaint had been lodged against the petitioner for serious acts of criminal intimidation and usurpation. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai has acquitted the petitioner and others only on account of com