The Madras High Court has given a completely new perspective to Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules (TNPSSR) and impressed upon the need for uniformed services recruitment board to judicially and objectively assess on a case-by-case basis as to whether a candidate’s involvement in a criminal case would make him ineligible to get recruited in the police force.
Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad said, ‘involvement’ was the crucial word which had to be taken as a guiding factor in so far as Rule 13(e) of TNPSSR was concerned and that candidature could not be rejected merely because an applicant had been acquitted from a criminal case by according the benefit of doubt and not honourably.
“An assessment has to be made by the appointing authority as to whether the involvement of a candidate in a criminal case would ultimately lead to the conclusion that his engagement would be detrimental for the nature of the employment for which he is being engaged. This may involve a bit of subjectivity but the material on record has to receive an objective consideration.”
“The question as to whether a person was involved in a case of violating a mere traffic rule or was involved in a heinous offence would obviously weigh with the employer to assess as to whether his engagement would otherwise be sustainable or be detrimental for recruitment in a Uniformed Police Force or not,” the first Division Bench said.
The Bench also stated that involvement of a person in a crime without his knowledge was also a factor that could eclipse any disadvantage or prospective impediment of the applicants in certain circumstances.
Further, it had to be assessed by the appointing authority as to whether a person had withheld information relating to his involvement knowingly or unkowingly.
“It is here that a play in the joints has to be given to the employer and unless such a latitude is given, it will be injuncting the authority from exercising its discretion to engage a person suitable for the post,” the judges said while allowing a writ appeal preferred by C. Surendhar who was not appointed as a constable for not having been acquitted honourably from a criminal case.
“We find that the appointing authority has simply rested its decision on the finding that the appellant did not deserve to be engaged on account of not having been honourably acquitted,” the judges observed. “Whether the fact of his involvement was such that this inference could be justified does not appear to have been discussed,” the judges said and ordered for reconsideration.
