AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard Mr. M. Saravanakumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, learned Government
Advocate for the Respondents.
The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order dated 20.05.2008, wherein by which, he was informed that he
cannot be selected for the post of Police Constable Grade-II, though he had gone through the written test successfully and his character and
conduct were verified and it was found that the Petitioner was facing a serious criminal case, which is registered in Crime No. 337 of 2007 in
Palani Taluk Police Station and the trial is in progress with the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani. Therefore, in terms of Rule 14(b) of the Special
Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, the Petitioner cannot be appointed. It is as against the said order, the Petitioner
filed the present Writ Petition.
In the Writ Petition, notice of motion was ordered on 25.02.2009. It is the case of the Petitioner that subsequent to the issuance of impugned
order, he was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, by judgment dated 17.12.2008. In view of the acquittal, ineligible to be
appointed is to be removed and, therefore, he should have an appointment. After filing the Writ Petition, the Petitioner realized that any subsequent
acquittal by grant of benefit of doubt by the criminal Court will not help the case of the Petitioner and as per the amendment made to Rule 14(b) of
the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, even acquittal by grant of benefit of doubt, will enable the authorities to
consider that having criminal back ground will operate as a disqualification.
The Petitioner moved this Court with Crl.R.C.(MD)No.323 of 2010, whereby by which, this Court, by order dated 26.04.2010, held that the
acquittal should be considered as a honourable acquittal. It is not clear as to how any Court can entertain a revision petition and grant such a
declaration. The order of acquittal in so long as it had been rendered by a competent Court, the findings rendered therein speaks for itself. The
purpose for which the Petitioner had moved this Court for getting such a declaration is to overcome the disqualification found under the relevant
service rules.
The Supreme Court very recently, vide judgment in The State rep. by CBI, Hyderabad Vs. G. Prem Raj, , has held that the criminal Court,
while acquitting an employee, cannot give any direction regarding service matter and the criminal Court should not deal with such matters. In
paragraph No. 36, it had been held as follows:
Last, but not the least, we are extremely surprised to read the last portion of the judgment of the High Court, wherein, the High Court has
honourably acquitted the accused and directed his reinstatement as seniormost Civil Engineer, Civil Department, MIDHANI with all usual retiral
monetary benefits inclusive of restoration of seniority, etc. with immediate retrospective effect. We wonder as to under what powers the High
Court has acted. This was certainly not the jurisdiction on the part of the High Court which had only to find whether the Respondent-accused was
guilty or not of the offence alleged against him. It has come in evidence that a full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted against the accused,
wherein he was found guilty. We are shocked to see the step taken by the High Court in straight away writing off the findings in departmental
enquiry without any justification. This aberration on the part of the High Court speaks of its wholly incorrect approach.
This is not within the domain of the Court. Therefore, the subsequent declaration by this Court, whatever may be its legal validity, can have no
bearing on the decision taken by the authorities in the present case.
Further, under the explanation added to Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 and when its
validity was challenged, this Court, vide judgment in V. Veeramani and G. Balasubramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and The Tamil Nadu
Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, , had upheld the validity of the rule. Subsequently, the matter was challenged and a Full Bench in
Manikandan v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97, confirmed the order passed by this Court.
Therefore, when the impugned order was passed by the first Respondent on 20.05.2008, the Petitioner was still facing a criminal case. His
acquittal came subsequently, after seven months. The subsequent acquittal would not invalidate the decision taken by the authorities.
In the light of the above, it is not a fit case where the action of the Respondents cannot be found fault with. Hence, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.