In Re: Venugopal Nayudu

.....then fall under any one of the two explanations under clause (iv) of rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise. -- t.n. district police act, 1859. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence. it is challenged only on the ground that it is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. but it is well settled that if a rule passes the twin tests of (i) being founded on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) such differentia having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, it cannot be said to be violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. the impugned rule creates a classification of persons, who were not involved in criminal cases and persons, who were involved in criminal cases. the object of creating such a classification is to ensure that only those persons, whose character and antecedents were beyond and shadow of doubt alone, are permitted entry into the police service of the state. the rule is only a reflection of the intention of the government to maintain purity of administration. the rule merely provides a check post or a filter point, to ensure that only those, who had a clean record of personal life, are admitted into the system. that the existing system, has already come under heavy dose of criticism, cannot be swept under the carpet. therefore, as an employer, the..........alleged various acts of misconduct in relation to that case. these charges were made to the district magistrate, tanjore, by the deputy superintendent of police, who suggested that proceedings should be taken against petitioner under the legal practioners act. in the result the additional district magistrate forwarded the police report to the sub-divisional magistrate: pattukottah for enquiry and the latter issued notice to petitioner under section 14 of the act. it is not quite clear what was in the mind of the additional district magistrate whether he intended that the sub-divisional magistrate should himself dispose of the charges or whether his idea was that a sort of preliminary enquiry should be held and a report should be submitted with a view to possible future action by himself. from either point of view, he acted without jurisdiction. the legal practitioners act makes no provision either for the transfer of proceedings or for the holding of a preliminary enquiry of such a nature. mr. jayarama aiyar contends that in any event most of the charges against his client cannot be enquired into as they relate to alleged acts of misconduct not committed in or in relation to the court which proposes to enquire into them. that, we consider, is an objection that should more properly be taken before the district magistrate, who will now proceed to deal with the matter himself. as, however, it has been taken here, we may as well dispose of it at once. the view relied on by mr. jayarama iyer finds support in several decisions of the patna high court of which we may quota that reported in emperor v. satyendra nath ray [1920] 1 p.l.t. 379 as an example. the same view has been expressed by the calcutta high court in in re radha nath charan chukerbutty [1905] 4 c.l.j. 229. with great respect, we prefer to follow the ruling of the calcutta high court reported as in re rabindra nath chatterjee a.i.r. 1922 cal. 484. as pointed out by woodroffe, j., and mookerjee, j.,.....