@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Honorable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint him as a Police Constable Grade II for which a special recruitment for Sports persons were held and applications were called for.
2. The writ petition was admitted on 14.5.2009. Pending the writ petition, in the application for interim direction, only notice was ordered. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 14.09.2010 together with supporting typed set.
3. It is admitted that the petitioner had gone for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable under 5% sports quota for the year 2007-2008. The petitioner was successful in the selection process. But during the course of verification of his antecedents, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a crime u/s 75 of the City Police Act in E-3 Teynampet Police Station Crime No. 2488/2008 and he came out on bail. A case was pending against him. A report received from the Inspector of Police, dated 18.01.2009 and a letter received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Intelligence section, dated 21.1.2009 were relied upon. It was sent to the Director General of Police. It was stated that since the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and the case was pending, he was not selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable under the sportsman quota.
4. The petitioner had complained before the State Human Rights Commission and the complaint was disposed of on 20.5.2009 in case No. 118/09. The complaint was rejected as the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the same. Though he was provisionally selected, but in the light of the fact that the petitioner had misbehaved with one Suresh, S/o Janarthanam, No. 18/24, Raja Nayakkan Thottam, Teynampet, Chennai in public and had abused him in unparliamentary words, the case was registered. Since the police force is a disciplined force and in view of the involvement in the criminal case, he was not selected. A copy of the F.I.R and the report sent against the petitioner was also produced in the typed set.
5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a false case. Because of personal enmity between the petitioner and one Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, the case was registered. The said Kumar was having link with one notorious rowdy by name Suresh. When he was going to his house, the said Suresh was standing in the road and he was eve-teasing the girls. He had also attacked the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint, the police came and picked up the petitioner and also attacked him brutally. He was only allowed to go next day to his house. He was also admitted in the Royapettah Government Hospital for the injuries suffered by him. He had also given a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission.
6. Section 75 of the City Police Act reads as follows:
Section 75 - Penalty for drunkenness or riotous or indecent behavior
(1) Whoever, in any public place, office, station-house or Court, or in any place of public amusement or on board of any passenger boat or vessel, is
(a) found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself; or
(b) found drunk and under the influence of liquor or drug; or
(c) found behaving in a violent or boisterous or disorderly or riotous or indecent manner or using any threatening, abusive or insulting words which causes or is likely to cause a breach of public peace.
(2) whoever is -
(a) found drunk and behaving in a violent or riotous or indecent manner in a private place, or causing nuisance or annoyance to the public or to neighbors or,
(b) found drunk and under the influence of liquor or drug while driving or riding a vehicle, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment not exceeding six months or fine not exceeding one thousand rupees.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that it was not a case that the petitioner had suppressed any information, but it was only based upon the registration of the FIR that too for trivial offence like Section 75 of the City Police Act and for which no enquiry has been held till date and the case itself has been registered due to enmity with another Sub Inspector of Police. Hence the respondent should not place reliance upon the said incident for denying him employment.
8. In this context, he referred to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in
8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.
9. The said judgment squarely applies to the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition will stand allowed. The respondents are directed to provide him the post of Police Constable Grade II. Such an order should be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. But the petitioner will not be entitled for any backwages. He will be paid salary only from the date of his appointment and he will also not claim any seniority. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
