T.Malai Mathi Vijayan v. The Commissioner of police
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Judgment date:
Case summary
Madras High Court judgment dated 2020-01-07. T.Malai Mathi Vijayan v. The Commissioner of police. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :07. 01. 2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 and WMP Nos. 13915 & 13916 of 2019 T. Malai Mathi Vijayan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, No. 132, Commissioner Office Building, E. V. K. Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai 600 007. 2. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old COP Office campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Chennai City Police, Old Washermanpet, Chennai 600 021. .. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the 1/11 W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 records and quash the proceeding passed by the 3rd respondent in Na. Ka. En. PaPi 2(1)/596/5571/2018, dated 12. 04.
2019 and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector under the departmental quota as notified by the 2nd respondent in Notification No. 2/2019 as per the petitioner's eligibility. For Petitioner : Mrs. K. Grahalakshmi For Respondents : Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. V. Kadhirvelu, for R2. Mr. P. S. Siva Shanmugasundram for R1 and R3. O R D E R The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 12. 04. 2019, rejecting the No objection Certificate (NOC) sought for by the petitioner to participate in the selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the Department quota and for a consequential direction to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process. 2/11 W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 2.
The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Police as a Police Constable Gr. II in the year 2003 and he was subsequently promoted as a Head Constable. A case came to be filed against the petitioner in Crime No. 48 of 2012 and consequent to the same, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner. At the end of the Disciplinary proceedings, punishment was imposed against the petitioner by postponing the increment for three years without cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an Appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the punishment was modified to one of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 3. The 2nd respondent issued a notification calling for applications for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
As per the notification, a Department quota of 20% is given for all serving police personnel to participate in the selection, if they meet the eligibility criteria under Rule 14 of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. The petitioner also applied for the said post. 4. The petitioner had sought for a No Objection Certificate 3/11 W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 in order to participate in the selection. The 3rd respondent by virtue of the impugned proceedings dated 12. 04. 2019, rejected the request for the NOC and the same has now become a subject matter of challenge in this writ petition before this Court. 5. M/s. K.
Grahalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect is considered to be a minor punishment and this punishment will have effect only for a period of five years and therefore, as on the date when the NOC was considered by the 3rd respondent, the five years have elapsed and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be given the NOC for participating in the selection. The learned counsel further submitted that the Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Greater Chennai, had earlier given NOC to the petitioner for applying under the Department Quota and at that point of time, it was clearly found that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is only a minor punishment and therefore, the petitioner was given the NOC. The learned counsel concluded her argument by submitting that the 3rd respondent mis- 4/11 W. P. No.
13831 of 2019 directed himself in rejecting the NOC mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not suffer the minor punishment as enlisted in the notification and therefore, the impugned proceedings requires interference. 6. Mrs. Narmatha Sampath, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot rely upon the earlier NOC that was given in the year 2015 by the Joint Commissioner of Police. The learned counsel submitted that there was an amendment to the Special Rules in the year 2017 by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 168, Home (Police VI) department, dated 02. 03. 2017, and this amendment clearly provided that any person seeking to participate in the selection of Sub-Inspector of Police from the side of the Department, must possess a clean record of service without any punishment other than the minor punishment of Black Mark, reprimand and/or censure.
The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner does not fall within any of these three punishments and therefore, the 3rd respondent was right in rejecting the NOC sought for by the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the very same issue had come up for 5/11 W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 consideration before this Court in WP Nos. 13090 & 13095 of 2019 in [S. Maharajan and another vs. The Principal Secretary to Government and others]. By placing reliance upon this judgement, the learned counsel submitted that this Court had categorically held that all those who are submitting their applications to secure appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, must satisfy the requirements of the amended Special Rules. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General further relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.
67, 68, 69 and 70 of 2018 in [Union Territory, Chandigarh, Administration and others Vs. Pradeep Kumar and another], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has insisted that in police force, it is always open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine the suitability of a candidate, who is involved in a criminal case. The learned Additional Advocate General concluded her arguments by submitting that the candidates who fall under the Departmental Quota, were expected to have a clean record, unless they had suffered the minor punishments which has been specifically mentioned in the rule itself and all the other candidates will not be 6/11 W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 entitled for NOC. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General sought for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials available on record. 9.
It is an admitted case that the petitioner had suffered a punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect. This punishment was imposed by the Deputy Inspector General, Thirunelveli Range by his proceedings dated 05. 07. 2013. It is also an admitted fact that the Special Rules under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules was amended by virtue of G. O. Ms. No. 168 dated 02. 03. 2017 and it will be relevant to extract the amendment that was brought into effect by this Government Order. 7/11 W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 "Category 2 Sub Inspector Must have completed (1) (i) Must posses a of Police the age of 20 years and Degree from any must not have University or Institution completed the age of 28 recognised by the years: University grants Commission.
Provided that for appointment of a (ii) Must have the candidate who is a ability to read and write member of Scheduled any one of the following Castes or Scheduled languages, namely, Tribes, the upper age Tamil, Telugu, limit shall be 33 years. Malyalam, Kannada or Hindustani. Provided further that for appointment of a (2) The Departmental candidate who is a quota candidates must member of Backward possess:- Classes or Most (i) a Degree from any Backward Classes or University or Institution Denotified recognised by the communities, the upper University Grants age limit shall be 30 Commission. years. (ii) five years of service in their respective Provided also that for categories as on 1st July appointment of a preceding the date of candidate who is a Notification of selection Destitute Widow, the and upper age limit shall be (iii) a clean record of 35 years service without any punishment other than the minor punishment of Black Mark, Reprimand and/or Censure. 10.
It is clear from the above amendment that a candidate 8/11 W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 who is aspiring to participate under the Department Quota in the selection, must have a clean record of service without any punishment. The only exception that has been given under the Rule is that the minor punishment of Black Mark, Reprimand and/or Censure, are not considered to be disqualifications. It is clear from the Rule that apart from these three punishments which have been enlisted, a candidate who has suffered any other punishment is disqualified from participating in the appointment and such punishments are construed to the effect that the candidate does not possess a clean record of service. 11.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, the police service requires such stringent qualifications to be prescribed in order to ensure that only those departmental candidates possessing clean records are permitted to participate in the Direct Recruitment. The same has also been made clear by the judgments relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General in this regard. 12. The 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 12. 04. 2019, 9/11 W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 has rejected the NOC for the petitioner on the ground that he has suffered a punishment of postponement of next increment for one year without cumulative effect and therefore, the petitioner is disqualified as per the amended Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules. 13.
This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent has passed the order, strictly in compliance with the Special Rules as was in force in the year 2019. 14. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07. 01. 2020 Internet: Yes/No Index: Yes/No rka 10/11 W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 N. ANAND VENKATESH,J. , rka W. P. No. 13831 of 2019 and WMP Nos. 13915 & 13916 of 2019 07. 01. 2020 11/11
Source: Madras High Court. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.