Acquittal on benefit of doubt or hostile witnesses does not entitle automatic police appointment; authority assesses suitability on antecedents.

JUDGMENT :

R.POORNIMA, J.

This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.13097 of 2022, dated 26.08.2022 and prayed to set aside the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable (Armed Reserve, Tamil Nadu Special Force) Jail Warden and Firemen in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment for the year 2020. He passed the written examination and other examination. During verification of his previous antecedent, it was found that he was involved in 2 crime numbers. 1) Crime No.996 of 2017 dated 17.07.2017 lodged in which the petitioner has was arrayed as A3 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC on the file of Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy and 2) Crime No.787 of 2015 was also registered against him for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 IPC on 21.12.2015 in which the petitioner was arrayed as A1 on the file of Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy. The office of the Commissioner of Police, vide letter in Na.Ka.No.A2/28885/2021 dated 12.01.2022 informed the petitioner that though he was acquitted in Crime No.996 of 2017 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC, the acquittal was only on the ground of benefit of doubt under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The judgment was rendered only on 18.06.2019. As per the Rule 14(b) (1) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Rules, a person should not involved in any criminal activity and his antecedents should be satisfied. As per the said Rule 14(b) explanation (1) a person who is acquitted on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case. Therefore, since his antecedent were not found satisfactory, he was not appointed.

2.1. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.13097 of 2022, before the Court which the learned Single Judge allowed the petition, in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 are as follows :

8. In the light of the above observations, the facts involved in the present case was looked into. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was acquitted in the criminal case registered against him. The petitioner herein had disclosed the registration of this complaint both in his application as well as during the time of police verification. As such, there is no suppression of facts from his side.

9. Under Clause 7(b) and 8(i) of the guidelines (supra), the candidates, who are acquitted honourably, were considered for appointment to the post of SI of Police/Grade II Police Constables on earlier occasions. The guidelines of the Director General of Police was laid down as a yardstick for the selection of the candidates, in addition to the disqualifications referred to under the notification, as well as the relevant rules. In other words, the aforesaid exception has been carved out from the disqualifications prescribed under the notification, as well as the Rules. Since the involvement of the candidate for any offence, who was acquitted honourably, was considered to be an exception, in view of the proceedings of the Director General of Police, dated 22.02.2021, the petitioner herein would be entitled for appointment. Since the petitioner's case was rejected through the impugned order, dated 12.01.2022, the same is liable to be set aside for the aforesaid reasons.

2.2. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 and direct the 3^rd respondent to forthwith pass appropriate orders in the light of the above findings and to issue posting orders to the petitioner for the post of Grade II Police Constable pursuant to the notification issued for common recruitment for the post of Grade-II Po