Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4527 (MAD)

M. Arumugam v. The Director General of Police

2011-11-15

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The second respondent made an advertisement for recruitment of Grade-II Police Constables in Tamil Nadu Police during the year 2001-2002. The petitioner applied for the same. He participated in the physical efficiency test and was successful. Thereafter, he was called to appear for written test and he was also successful. Then, he participated in the interview. Thereafter, the petitioner was communicated by a letter dated 20.8.2003 that he was provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and he was directed to appear with all documents on 22.8.2003 at District Police Office, Villupuram for Medical examination. He appeared for Medical examination and there it was declared that the petitioner was medically fit to hold the post. He also made a declaration that he was not involved in any criminal case and he was not convicted for any offence in criminal case. However, he was not given appointment. 2. When he sent a representation dated 12.12.2003 seeking reason as to why he was not appointed as Grade-II Police Constable though he was provisionally selected, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 stating that the conduct and personal character of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Hence, the petitioner filed Original Application No.499 of 2004 (W.P.No.32062 of 2005) to quash the aforesaid impugned order dated 21.1.2004. 3. The respondents filed the counter affidavit refuting the allegations. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that on verification, it was found that the antecedents of the petitioner was not satisfactory. 4. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. I have also perused the original records produced by the Government Advocate. 5. The petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. On the basis of verification of the antecedents, which was found not satisfactory, the petitioner was not given appointment order. The petitioner wanted to know the reason for not appointing him, pursuant to the provisional selection. The first respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 stating that the conduct and personal character of the petitioner were not satisfactory. The reason stated in the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 for not selecting the petitioner reads as follows: <span class="Hfont">.",tuJ elj;ij kw;Wk; jdp egh; xGf;fk; Mfpait jpUg;jpfukhf ,y;iy" 6. The first respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 stating that the conduct and personal character of the petitioner were not satisfactory. The reason stated in the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 for not selecting the petitioner reads as follows: <span class="Hfont">.",tuJ elj;ij kw;Wk; jdp egh; xGf;fk; Mfpait jpUg;jpfukhf ,y;iy" 6. When the matter was listed on 3.11.2011, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate for the respondents to produce the entire file relating to the selection of the petitioner. Accordingly, the file was produced before this Court. 7. From the file produced by the respondents, it is seen that the Sub Inspector of Police, Sankarapauram enquired the Headmaster of the Government High School, Arasampattu and took the conduct certificate relating to the petitioner. In the conduct certificate, the Headmaster of the School certified that the conduct of the petitioner is good during his school days. The petitioner studied in Arasampattu High School from the academic years 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. The Sub Inspector of Police also enquired Tmt.Lakshmi Arjunan, the President of the Village Panchayat about the antecedents of the petitioner. She also gave a certificate dated 1.9.2003 stating that the conduct of the petitioner is good and no criminal case is pending against him and there is no complaint against the petitioner. The Sub Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram Police Station also took statement from the Village Administrative Officer of Arasampattu on 1.9.2003. The Village Administrative Officer also certified that the conduct of the petitioner is good. He also enquired one Thiru Ranganathan, S/o. Aumuga Achari. He obtained a statement from him that the conduct of the petitioner is good and there is no civil or criminal case pending against the petitioner. The Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram stating that in the enquiry, it was found that the conduct of the petitioner is good. 8. But, the Sub Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Villupuram sent a letter dated 14.9.2003 stating that on his verification, he found that the petitioner had illegal intimacy with many ladies, due to which, his wife deserted him. According to him, the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. He has also stated that the petitioner has not come to any political adverse notice and he neither affiliated to any political party nor any organization. According to him, the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory. He has also stated that the petitioner has not come to any political adverse notice and he neither affiliated to any political party nor any organization. The letter dated 14.9.2003 of the Sub Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Villupuram is extracted hereunder: "Verification in respect of Tr.Arumugam S/o.Muniyan of Puthu Arasampattu, Sankarapuram T.K., reveals that he has illegal intimacy with many ladies due to which his wife deserted him. Hence, his character and conduct is not satisfactory. Anyhow, he has not come to any political adverse notice and he neither affiliated to any political party nor any organization". 9. Based on the same, the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 was passed by the first respondent. 10. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to paragraph No.4 of the Original Application, which is extracted hereunder: "The applicant states that he got married to one Ranjani belonging to Mottor Village, Attur Taluk, Salem District on 3.6.2001. The marriage was arranged by his paternal uncle, Kannu who is neighbour to the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant came to know that the said Ranjani had illicit connection with Chellamuthu, S/o Ramaswamy of Thadavur Village. On being questioned by the applicants parents, she left the legal and lawful abode voluntarily and gone to her native village at Mottur and joined with her erstwhile lover. Hence, a panchayat was conducted in the village and the marriage was dissolved in the presence of Panchayatars. The applicants paternal uncle by name Kannu, who was a neighbour to the applicant and got infuriated over this happening, wanted to take revenge against the applicant. When police personnel from Sankarapuram P.S namely Head Constable Santharam and Police Constable Shanmugam, came to the village for verification of the antecedents of the applicant, it is learnt that Kannu has given a wrong information about the applicant stating that the applicant is a person of very bad character and reputation. The police officials who came there to verify the antecedents, did not enquire either the applicant or his family members or any other respectable villagers. It seems that they have submitted a wrong report based on the statement given by Kannu who had difference of opinion and ill-will against the applicant for obvious reasons". 11. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It seems that they have submitted a wrong report based on the statement given by Kannu who had difference of opinion and ill-will against the applicant for obvious reasons". 11. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The answers for the plea made by the petitioner in paragraph No.4 of the petition are found in paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit and the same is extracted hereunder: "With regard to the averments made in 6(3) and (4) of the affidavit, it is submitted that, Police Verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner was done by three wings of the Police Department, namely, the Local Police, District Special Branch and Intelligence CID. The three wings carry out their enquiries independently without any bias or prejudice. The Verification reports submitted by the District Special Branch and the Intelligence CID of Police Department revealed that petitioner has illegitimate intimacy with many ladies, his wife deserted him due to his infidelity and his character and conduct was not satisfactory and therefore, he was not appointed to the said post. Hence the petitioners contention that the Police Verification report was prepared by getting information from one who was having ill will with the petitioner is not correct". 12. The aforesaid facts would make it clear that the first respondent is not correct in passing the impugned order stating that the conduct and personal character of the petitioner are bad. The first respondent passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 based on the report dated 14.9.2003 sent by the Sub Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Villupuram stating that the conduct and character of the petitioner are not satisfactory. 13. The Sub Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram made enquiries with many persons and sent a report but the same was not acted upon by the first respondent. On the other hand, the Sub Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Villupuram sent a verification report dated 14.9.2003, for which, there is no supporting material in the file. But, the first respondent has taken action on the basis of the report dated 14.9.2003 without any supporting material. 14. From the reading of the verification report dated 14.9.2003, it is seen that the Sub Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Villupuram, seems to have recorded his conclusion based on the matrimonial problem of the petitioner with his wife. But, the first respondent has taken action on the basis of the report dated 14.9.2003 without any supporting material. 14. From the reading of the verification report dated 14.9.2003, it is seen that the Sub Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Villupuram, seems to have recorded his conclusion based on the matrimonial problem of the petitioner with his wife. The petitioner stated that he got married at an early age immediately after his School days on 3.6.2001 and according to him, his marriage life was not happy and his wife went away. The petitioner also stated that the marriage was dissolved in the presence of panchayatars. He passed the Higher Secondary Course in the academic year 1999-2000 and he got married on 3.6.2001 and he lived with his wife for very short period. 15. Just because his wife went away from him, no one could call the man immoral and his personal character is not good, particularly in the absence of any material. The Sub Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Villupuram noted that his wife deserted him, since the petitioner had illegal intimacy with many ladies, for which, there is no supporting material in the file produced by the learned Government Advocate. Based on the said verification report dated 14.9.2003, the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 was passed by the first respondent without any supporting documents. 16. Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services Rules 1978 contemplates that no person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. 17. The department also enquired as to whether the petitioner faced any criminal case and whether he was convicted in any criminal case and it was found that the petitioner never faced any criminal case and he was never convicted in any criminal case. 18. The petitioner also sent a representation dated 12.12.2003 to the first respondent stating that the marriage ended in divorce on 27.11.2002. He also enclosed the document signed by both the petitioner and his wife that the marriage came to end and the said document was executed in the presence of the Village Panchayatars. Such document was also found in the file. 19. He also enclosed the document signed by both the petitioner and his wife that the marriage came to end and the said document was executed in the presence of the Village Panchayatars. Such document was also found in the file. 19. In such circumstances, the first respondent particularly in the absence of any supporting materials is not justified in refusing to give appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the conduct and personal character of the petitioner are not satisfactory. Absolutely, there is no material to come to the conclusion that the conduct and personal character of the petitioner are not satisfactory. 20. There is no supporting material in the records to establish that the conduct and personal character of the petitioner are bad. Hence the impugned order dated 21.1.2004 passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. The first respondent is directed to provide appointment to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 21. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.