1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.2207 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 G.Ramamoorthy : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapur, Chennai-4. 2.The Chairmen, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, P.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner in the post of Grade II Police Constable/Grade II Jail Warders/Firemen-2010. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan For M/s.Right Law Associates For Respondents : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader ******** ORDER ****** The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus, directing the first respondent to issue appointment order to him to the post of Grade II Police Constable/Grade II Jail Warders/Firemen-2010, within a time stipulated by this Court. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is stated hereunder: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 The petitioner applied to the post of Grade II Police Constable on seeing the notification/advertisement made in that regard. He has attended all the tests and came out successfully. However, he has not been given appointment. On verification, it has been found that he has been denied employment, since he was involved himself in a criminal case at Solanvandhan Police Station, Madurai District. The petitioner, immediately, informed the respondents that the criminal case ended in acquittal even on 07.04.2010 by the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti at Madurai District, which was initiated at the instance of his relative, in view of the civil dispute between them. However, the respondents, without considering the same, has not given him employment and hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. On notice, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that since the petitioner involved in a criminal case, appointment could not be given to him, even though he has succeeded in all tests. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner involved in a criminal case on a complaint given by the relative of the petitioner. The petitioner was charged under Sections 323, 324 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted by the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, by a judgment dated 07.04.2010. The criminal Court found that the charge against the petitioner was not established and passed an order of acquittal. The order of acquittal was passed on 07.04.2010 and it is stated that the notification for the post of Grade-II Police Constable was made subsequent to that. 6. In such circumstances, it has to be seen whether the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case can be put against the petitioner, that too, when he was acquitted in the criminal case before the notification was issued for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. 7. In a recent judgment in Commr. of Police and Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar [Civil Appeal No(s).1430 of 2007], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a person, who was involved in a criminal case, which is not of serious nature, cannot be denied employment. 8. That apart, this Court also has taken such view in G.Kirubagaran vs. Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004 and two others [W.P.No.21254 of 2010], dated 07.02.2011. Paragraph No.10 of the said order is usefully extracted hereunder: "10. A perusal of the said judgment, more particularly, paragraph 10 would disclose that if an accused is acquitted after full https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 consideration of evidence because the prosecution witnesses are disbelieved and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges, it would amount to honourable acquittal and in the event the Court while acquitting an accused neither say that the case against him is false nor does it say that the accused has been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, then the acquittal may be honourable acquittal or acquittal of all blame." 9. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner should have been considered by the respondents for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable/Grade II Jail Warders/Firemen-2010, 10. In fine, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner by passing suitable orders giving him appointment to the said post and the said exercise has to be carried out by them, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapur, Chennai-4. 2.The Chairmen, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 807, P.Lee, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District +One cc to The Spl .Govt Pleader, SR.No.12551 +One cc to M/s.RightLaw Associates, Advocate, SR.No.12256 SML rl/6c – 14.6.2011 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2207 of 2011 Dated:- 01.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/