Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 18185
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice D. KRISHNAKUMAR
THE CHAIRMAN – Appellant
Versus
K.BALACHANDRAN – Respondent
Acquittal on benefit of doubt disqualifies candidates for immediate appointment but allows future consideration based on character assessments, depending on the nature of prior offences.
Headnote:
Eligibility - Appointment - Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules - [Rule 14(b)] - The court held that acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt disqualifies candidates for police service appointments but allows discretion regarding trivial offences.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent challenged the rejection of his application for police service based on a prior criminal case where he was acquitted on benefit of doubt. He had disclosed this involvement in his application, contrary to the appellant's claim.
Issues: Whether the respondent was unjustly denied appointment due to his acquittal on the grounds of benefit of doubt in a prior criminal case?
Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt does not confer a right to appointment but allows for employer discretion based on character and antecedents, provided the offences are not serious.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is disposed of, allowing future consideration for appointment.
JUDGEMENT
(Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order passed by the writ court in W.P.No. 8135 of
2020dated 04.12.2020, the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. Brief facts:
The respondent has filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 8135 of 2020 challenging the rejection order dated 24.03.2020 issued by the appellants herein on the ground that the respondent has not disclosed his involvement in the criminal case in Crime No. 5 of 2019 in the application from and he was acquitted by the Criminal Court on the basis of benefit of doubt and not on merits. This Court by order dated 04.12.2020 set aside the rejection order passed by the department and directed the department to appoint the respondent to which he is eligible and pass appropriate orders. Challenging the said order this Court, the present writ appeal is filed.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants has submitted that Rule 14(b)of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules denotes that “A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt in a criminal case will be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service and the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified. In the present case on hand, the respondent herein was involved in a criminal case and acquitted on the ground of 'benefit of doubt', therefore as per Rule 14(b) his name was not considered for selection and the same was cancelled by the authority concerned.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the following decisions;
i. Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & others reporeted in 2016 (8) SCC
471 ii. Satish Chandra Yadav Vs.Union of Inida & others, reported in
2022(6) LLN 13 (SC) : 2022 SCC Online SC 1300.
5. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department, Mylapore Chennai & Others Vs. K.Indhu Kumar (W.A (MD)Nos. 938 of 2020 & etc., batch, dated 05.06.2023, reported in 2023 (3) CWC 200, in which one of us (DKKJ) is member, following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has passed detailed order observing as follows;
“18.Therefore, from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that once the candidate is having knowledge about his involvement in a criminal case ( not being of trivial in nature) had suppressed the same at the time of filing of an application, he is not entitled to seek any appointment. But in cases where the information was not furnished in the application form relating to an offence ( not being trivial in nature), the employer in his discretion is entitled to consider his candidature by considering his character and past antecedents.
(D). SUMMARY OF PREPOSITION OF LAW:
19. In the light of the above said deliberations, the preposition of law could be summarized as follows:
(a). In case of honourable acquittal, discharge, case closed as mistake of fact, quashing of F.I.R/Charge Sheet before the date of police verification, the same should be considered in favour of the candidate in the current selection itself.
(b).Where the candidate has been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt or hostility of witnesses (before the date of police verification), that would not confer any right upon the candidate to claim appointment as a matter of right. It is for the employer to consider the suitability of the candidate based upon his conduct and antecedents only if the offences are trivial in nature.
(c).Where the criminal case has been quashed (before police verification) on the basis of a compromise and the offence is of trivial in nature, the same can be considered in favour of the candidate in the current selection itself. However, if the offence involved is not of a trivial in nature, the same cannot be considered for appointment.
(d).Where a candidate having knowledge about his involvement in a criminal case had suppressed the same in his application and
