IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.08.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.23104 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 A.Parthiban .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 4.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
3. The Inspector of Police, Morapur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
4. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, PT.Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records made in Na.Ka.No.501/11229/Appointment 1(2)/2011 dated 27.04.2011 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to appoint the writ petitioner for the post of Constable Grade II in the available vacancy.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 02.08.2017 made in W.M.P.No.19969 of 2017 in W.P.No.23104 of 2012) For Petitioner .. Mr.S.Ramachandran For Respondents .. Mr.T.M.Pappiah, Spl. Govt. Pleader ORDER Challenging the order of the first respondent dated 27.04.2011 and for a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Constable Grade II in the available vacancy, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that in 2009, a Notification was issued for recruitment to the post of Constable Grade II. The petitioner, being qualified, applied in response to the Notification for considering his candidature. Thereafter, he was subjected to selection and he was selected for appointment to the post of Constable Grade II. While his actual appointment was kept pending, the petitioner came to know that there was a report against him that he was implicated in a criminal case, which the petitioner failed to inform the officials.
3. According to the petitioner, the incident which culminated in the filing of the criminal case was relating to a group clash during a cricket match conducted in the village and the petitioner, though was not part of the cricket match, was not aware that he being shown as accused in the criminal case. According to him, no summons was issued to him at all in the criminal case and therefore, there was no occasion for him to indicate his involvement in the criminal case to the officials during the time when he was subjected to selection for appointment to the post of Constable Grade II.
4. While matter stood thus, it appears that the petitioner's name has subsequently been deleted from the charge sheet on 12.05.2012. The self-deletion had taken place on the basis of the fact that the petitioner's name was wrongly included in the F.I.R. at the first instance. In any event, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties to the clash, the complaint itself came to be closed. The case of the petitioner is that he was never summoned either by the respondents or by the Revenue Officials in regard to the incident which is said to have culminated in filing the F.I.R. In the said circumstances, in his application form, the petitioner did not indicate his involvement in any criminal case in response to the questionnaire.
5. While so, vide order dated 27.04.2011, the first respondent has rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he did not disclose the information regarding his involvement in the criminal case and therefore, he would not be entitled to appointment as Grade II Constable in terms of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services.
6. Upon notice, Mr.T.M.Pappiah, learned Special Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and filed counter affidavit. The facts as stated above are not disputed. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would oppose the grant of relief on the ground that at the time of subjecting the petitioner for selection, rightly or wrongly, his name was implicated in the criminal case and therefore, the selection was not approved by the authorities concerned.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the averments as contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He would strongly urge this Court that in the circumstances of this case, there was no occasion for the petitioner to disclose the fact of his involvement in the criminal case as he himself was not aware of his involvement as no enquiry was conducted against him and no summon was issued to him by any Court or by any authorities who investigated the matter. In such an event, the non-intimation of his involvement in the criminal case cannot be construed to be a motivated one in order to dis-entitle him for seeking appointment to public service.
8. The learned counsel would further contend that even otherwise the criminal case was on the basis of a clash between two groups during the cricket match held in the village and subsequently, the entire complaint has been closed on the basis of the terms arrived at between the parties at the instance of the local officials concerned. That being the case, the denial of employment to the petitioner is per se unjust and arbitrary and cannot be countenanced in law.
9. Upon considering the above circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petition. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is set aside and consequently there shall be a direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Grade II Constable on the basis of his selection conducted in 2010 with all attendant benefits like seniority, continuity of service and other service benefits excluding salary for the period when he has not worked on the basis of the principle "No work No pay". The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The writ petition stands allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.08.2017 Index:Yes/No mmi To
1. The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 4.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
3. The Inspector of Police, Morapur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.
4. The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.807, PT.Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Maligai, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
mmi W.P.No.23104 of 2012 02.08.2017