P. Murugan vs The Director General of Police

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the respondent dated 26.10.2004 and direct the

respondent to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Constable with all monetary benefits.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is that the petitioner applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable and attended

physical and written test and having come out successful, he was waiting for appointment. The impugned order was passed by the respondent

stating that the petitioner''s character and antecedence are not found satisfactory by the appointing authority and therefore, the petitioner''s

candidature for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable was not considered and rejected.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner involved in a petty case u/s 75 of the Madras City Police Act and he pleaded

guilty while he was a minor and he was released on admonition u/s 3 of the Probation of Offences Act. The petitioner after passing Plus Two

examination, completed B.A., degree course in Vivekananda College, Agasteeswaram, Kanniyakumari District and during the said course of

study, his conduct and character were assessed by the Principal of the College who issued the certificate stating that the petitioner''s conduct and

character are good. The said certificate finds a place in page 2 of the typed set and the said certificate is dated 23.05.2003.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no material available to come to the conclusion by the respondent that the

petitioner''s conduct and character are not satisfactory except on the admonition in respect of the criminal case registered u/s 75 of the Madras

City Police Act and the learned Magistrate released the petitioner u/s 3 of the P.O. Act. Section 12 of the P.O. Act clearly states that there is no

disqualification attaching to conviction u/s 3 of the P.O. Act. For proper appreciation, Section 12 of the P.O. Act is extracted herein:

Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction-

Notwithstanding anything contended in any law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4

shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law, provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a

person who, after his release u/s 4 , is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in P. Virabhagu Vs. The Union of India

(UOI), and stated that the non disclosure of conviction cannot be a bar for getting appointment particularly, when the offence is a very minor

offence. In the said Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the similar order passed, was set aside and the respondents were directed to

appoint the petitioner.

The learned Counsel also cited a Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Another Vs. Dhaval

Singh, to show that mere involvement in a criminal case is not a bar for getting appointment. Yet another Judgment of a Division Bench made in

W.P. Nos. 2265 & 2266 of 2002 dated 22.06.200 5 was produced before me which confirmed the order of the State Administrative Tribunal

quashing the similar order of rejecting the appointment on the ground that the petitioner''s antecedence and character are not satisfactory.

As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Section 12 of the P.O.Act clearly states that release of the person u/s 3 of the

P.O.Act is not a bar for getting Government appointment. The offence alleged against the petitioner in criminal case, being a petty offence, the

Judgment of the Division Bench above referred, clearly applies to the facts of this case.

Relying on the above cited Judgments, I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and accordingly, the

same is set aside and the respondent is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner if there is no other impediment. The orders to that

effect shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed.