Madras High Court
P.Ramasamy vs The Additional Director General ... on 23 August, 2021
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
and
W.M.P(MD)No.6681 of 2019
P.Ramasamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Additional Director General of Police
and the Inspector General of Prisons,
Department of Prisons,
CMDA Tower II,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ... Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned reference No.50528/EW.1/2017-9 dated
14.12.2018 issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct
the respondent to consider afresh the petitioner's case in the light of judgment
passed in (2015)2 SCC 377 Jogender Singh Vs. UT of Chandigarh and others to
induct the petitioner as 2nd Grade Jail Warder.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus
For Respondent : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the relief of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
reference No.50528/EW.1/2017-9 dated 14.12.2018 issued by the respondent
and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to consider the
petitioner's case afresh.
2.The petitioner applied to the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board for various post including Grade-II Jail Warder on
18.01.2018. The petitioner appeared for the written examinations and other
tests as per the recruitment notification. The writ petitioner had cleared all the
examinations and he was eligible for the post of Grade-II Jail Warder in the
respondent Department. While that being so, the petitioner's appointment was
not considered and the same was rejected on the ground that during the police
enquiry it reveals that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case before the
Eral Police Station, Tuticorin District. Based on the said report, the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
rejection order was passed. Challenging the aforesaid order, the writ petition is
filed before this Court.
3.According to the petitioner, the aforesaid criminal case was lodged
against the petitioner under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC @ 294(b), 324,
323, 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.429 of 2014. The aforesaid criminal case was
registered as C.C.No.236 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
Court, Srivaikundam. After considering the list of witnesses and evidences
adduced before the Court on the side of both sides, the trial Court has come to
the conclusion that the Criminal case registered as against the petitioner was
ended in acquittal and therefore, no criminal case is pending as against the
petitioner. According to the petitioner, the dispute had occurred only between
the petitioner and the complainant and no corroborated evidence has been
established before the Trial Court. Hence, the rejection order has been passed
by the respondent by without taking note of the judgment passed by the Trial
Court.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent states that the said
dispute is purely a private dispute among the petitioner and the complainant
and on perusal of the judgment it is seen that the Trial Court has acquitted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
petitioner by giving benefit of doubt and it is not a honorary acquittal for the
petitioner.
5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent also has
not disputed the said fact that it is not a case as against the petitioner involving
moral turpitude or offence of heinous/ serious nature. Therefore, the learned
Standing Counsel sought disposal of the writ petition.
6.I am consciously considered the submissions of the parties and perused
the materials on record.
7.The point for consideration in the case of the petitioner is that the writ
petitioner has been involved in the Criminal case in Crime No.429 of 2014 for
the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC @ 294(b), 324, 323,
506(ii) IPC before the Eral Police Station, Tuticorin District wherein the
petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the said criminal case. The case has
been referred to the criminal Court in C.C.No.236 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikundam. By judgment dated
14.10.2017, the trial Court acquitted the petitioner on the ground of benefit of
doubt. The fact remains is that the said dispute is purely a private dispute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
among the petitioner and the complainant. On perusal of the nature of the
offences, the petitioner is not involved in moral turpitude or offence of heinous/
serious nature.
8.This Court in W.P.No.31601 of 2017 has dealt with identical issue and
the relevant portion of the order, dated 09.01.2020, are extracted hereunder:
“7.The Division Bench of this Court in an identical issue in W.A.Nos.626,
627, 816 to 825 and 159 of 2014, considered the scope of rejection of the
candidature to the post of Grade II Police Constable and following the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case(supra), observed
that the involvement of the candidate in a criminal case may have adverse
impact, the appointing authority would take a decision after considering the
seriousness of the case and directed the Director General of Police to consider
the case of the petitioner therein in the light of the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as under :
“38.1.Information given to the employer by a candidate as
to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into service must be true and
there should be no suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2.While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the
employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if
any, while giving such information.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
38.3.The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders / instructions/ rules, applicable to he
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had
already been recorded before filling of the application /
verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of
employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case
may be adopted:
38.4.1.In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had
been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a
petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information
by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2.Where conviction has been recorded in case which
is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3.If acquittal had already been recorded in a case
involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/ serious nature,
on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or
benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may
consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may
take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
38.5.In a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the
right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
appoint the candidate.
38.6.In case when fact has been truthfully declared in
character verification from regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the
case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to
decision of such case.
38.7.In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with
respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself
will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate
order cancelling candidature or terminating services as
appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases
were pending may not be proper.
38.8.If criminal case was pending but not known to the
candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse
impact and the appointing authority would take decision after
considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9.In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding
departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order
of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression
or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10.For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only
such information which was required to be specifically
mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but
is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be
considered in an objective manner while addressing the question
of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact
which was not even asked for.
38.11.Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to
him.”
9.Therefore, in the case on hand, charge sheet was filed against the
petitioner and it was taken on file in C.C.No.236 of 2015 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikundam and by judgment dated 14.10.2017 the
aforesaid criminal case was ended in acquittal. The petitioner was given the
benefit of doubt and he was not honorarily acquitted on considering the nature
of the offences in which the petitioner was involved.
10.In the light of the decision of the aforesaid judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016)
8 SCC 471] as well as this Court in W.A.Nos.626, 627, 816 to 825 and 159 of
2014, to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the authority and pass the following order on the
same link of the order, dated 09.01.2020, in W.P.No.31601 of 2017:-
“The impugned order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the respondent is
quashed and the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's selection for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
the posts of Grade-II, Jail Warder afresh, and in accordance with law within a
period of twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.“
11.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed with these directions.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.
23.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
pnn
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Additional Director General of Police
and the Inspector General of Prisons,
Department of Prisons,
CMDA Tower II,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
pnn
W.P(MD)No.8565 of 2019
and
W.M.P(MD)No.6681 of 2019
23.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
