1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.8527 of 2011 Thangamarimuthu ..Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 2.The Director General of Police, Law & Order, Tamil Nadu, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-4. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in RC.No.90004/Rect.I(2)/ 2010, dated 18.05.2011 issued by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable -2009 on the basis of the selection made pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.R1/2800/2009 dated 23.11.2009. For Petitioner :Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For Respondents :Mr.TS.Mohamed Mohideen for R1 and R2 Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order passed by the Director General of Police, the second respondent, dated 18.05.2011. This order itself is came to be passed only on a direction given by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.4876 of 2010. In that writ petition, this Court without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Police Constable Grade II for which selection was made in the year 2009. The Director General of Police was also directed to take in to account the judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.556 of 2004, dated 05.09.2008, wherein the petitioner along with 7 others were acquitted reversing the judgment made in S.C.No.175 of 2001 dated 07.04.2004. 2. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the respondent passed the detailed order upholding that the acquittal made by this Court reversing the finding of the Sessions Court did not enure to the benefit of the petitioner in considering his case of his employment and reliance was placed upon Rule 14(b)(ii) of the Special Rules applicable to the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred in short as TNSPSS). Under the relevant Rule, a person's character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. The explanation 2 to the said Rule states that a person involved in a criminal case as the time of police verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as non involvement in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment. Explanation 1 to the said Rule states that a person who is acquitted or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 discharged on benefit or doubt or due to the fact that complainant turned hostile shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case. 3. The Director General of Police in its order had stated that on a perusal of the criminal Court Judgment, the acquittal made by this Court indicates that it was not a honourable acquittal and he was acquitted on giving benefit of doubt and therefore explanations 1 and 2 to Rule 14(b) of TNSPSS will apply to the case of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for getting appointment in terms of the Rules. He relied on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Manikandan & Others v. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97. In that judgment the Full Bench headed by A.P.Shah, (C.J.,) (as he then was) held that explanation (1) to Rule 14(b) of TNSPSS is valid and the person cannot enter into service, if he is convicted by criminal court and even if he subsequently acquitted by giving benefit of doubt by the appropriate Court. 4. Showing the judgment of the Full Bench, the counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case, the petitioner was honourably acquitted and therefore, the explanation pointed out by the Full Bench will not apply to the case of the petitioner. He took pains to take this Court to the various findings rendered by this Court in Crl.A.No.556 of 2004 dated 05.09.2008. 5. On the contrary, a perusal of the Judgment passed by this Court more particularly in paragraph 15, does not support the stand of the petitioner and this Court did not find any illegal or irregularity in the order passed by the second respondent. Even assuming that the petitioner was able to establish that it was an honourable acquittal, then he comes within the explanation 2 to Rule 14(b) of TNSPSS and in that case he has to go through the selection for the next time, whereas in the present case the petitioner has come forward seeking for appointment on the basis of the original selection for which he went through and no orders were passed. In any event, such a contention is academic. In view of the fact that this Court did not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent, the Director General of Police, is correctly held that the acquittal was not on merits and in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court and on the factual finding rendered by the second respondent, this is not a fit case where any relief can be given to the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( RTI Act ) /TRUE COPY/ jikr SUB ASST REGISTRAR To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Chengalvaraya Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 2.The Director General of Police, Law & Order, Tamil Nadu, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-4. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 35739: DM::2011:OCTOBER:::29:: Order made in W.P.(MD)No.8527 of 2011 2P:4C:: 13.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/