(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.NO.P1/19500/2012 dated 18.02.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint him as Grade II Police Constable for the year 2012 within a time frame as fixed by this Court.)
1. The petitioner applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 2012. He was successful in the written test and also in the physical test. But, he was not selected by the impugned order dated 18.02.2013. The impugned order dated 18.02.2013 is challenged in this writ petition and he has also sought a direction to appoint him as Grade II Police Constable.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The impugned order is extracted hereunder:-
“TAMIL”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the judgment dated 26.03.2013 in W.P.(MD).No.474 of 2013 etc., batch, it is held that the involvement of the petitioner in petty offence like Section 75 of Tamil Nadu City Police Act and the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act could not disqualify the petitioners for holding the post of Grade II Police Constable. He also relied on paragraph 33 of the said judgment.
5. The learned counsel also pointed out that even the offences under Sections 323, 324, 506(i) and 506(ii) and 325 IPC are petty offences. If that be so, the traffic offences with which the petitioner is involved is also a petty offence, for which the petitioner cannot be deprived of selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable.
6. Further, the learned counsel has also submitted that the learned Judge in paragraph 33 of the said judgment has referred to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1996(2) LLJ 703(SC) in the matter of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & another, wherein the conviction under traffic case shall be treated as conviction at all for any purpose.
7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader has sought to justify the impugned order stating that the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. The paragraphs 21 and 33 of the judgment in W.P.(MD).Nos.474 of 2013, dated 26.03.2013 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are extracted hereunder:-
“21. . . . ....
The person coming under the categories 4 and 5, namely persons involved in petty offences, cannot also be denied of selection on the simple ground that they suppressed their involvement, considering the nature of the offence in which they were found guilty.
33. Further, there is a saying 'every saint had a past, every thief has a future. Further, the petitioners are involved in the offences under sections 323, 324, 506(i), 506(ii) & 325 ipc and such offences cannot be held to be serious and some of the petitioners were fined under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act and the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act. The offences are only petty in nature and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgment reported in Pawan Kumar's case, those offences cannot be brought under 'Moral Turpitude' and when those offences cannot be brought under the caption 'Moral Turpitude', it cannot be advisable to hold that the suppression of those particulars in the application form a serious one. In this connection, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Pawan Kumar's case [1996(II) LLJ 703, (SC)] is relevant and it is as follows:-
“Before concluding this judgment, we hereby draw attention of the Parliament to step in and perceive the large number of cases which per law and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and thousands of people throughout the country appearing before summary courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic, municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code, mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum on plea-bargaining is the end of the career, future or present, as the case may be, of that young and/or inexperienced person, putting a blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are therefore necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences especially when tried summarily. Provisions need be made that punishment of fine upto a certain limit, say upto Rs.2000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in government service, this can brook no delay, whatsoever.”
9. In view of the above and in view of fact that the petitioner was charged under Sections 279 and 337 IPC relating to a Motor Accident case, in which while he was driving motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 59 BZ 8433 involved in an accident with another motor cycle bearing registration TN 59 AX 8984 and caused minor injuries to the persons who came in the other motor cycle, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.