Madras High Court
R.Sivanesan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 February, 2021
W.A.No.236 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.236 of 2021
R.Sivanesan ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police
Vellore District.
2. The Director General of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylaore, Chennai – 4. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 27.4.2019 passed in W.P.No.31439 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.M.Alagu Goutham
For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
State Government Pleader
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.236 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order of April
27, 2019 by which his writ petition has been rejected on the ground
that he had suppressed material facts in his application for being
inducted into a police post.
2. Before noticing the impugned judgment, it may do well to
see how the appellant had approached to answer the relevant
question. The translated version of the question and the answer
supplied by the appellant are as follows:
“15. Have you ever been concerned in any criminal
Case as defendant (sic)?
Ans: Yes
Cr.No.246/2018, on the file of Ponnai PS and
acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.PC by the District Munsiff
and Session Judge No.1, Walajapet.”
3. There is no dispute that the appellant was also involved in a
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.236 of 2021
further criminal case which had been instituted against him in 2011.
The appellant was acquitted even in such previous case where
similar charges of assault and the like had been levelled against
him.
4. The primary ground that the appellant canvasses is that the
answer to Question No.15 was required to be made with a simple
“Yes” or “No” and if an applicant had been convicted, the details
would have been required to be furnished as answer to Question
No.16. The appellant says that he was under no obligation to
furnish any details to qualify his answer of “Yes” to Question No.15
and the fact that such information had been furnished should not be
counted against the appellant. The essence of the submission is
that since irrelevant matter had been indicated in the appellant's
answer to Question No.15, particularly when the details of the cases
had not been sought, the fact that the appellant missed out
referring to another case could never have been seen to be a
material suppression on the part of the appellant.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.236 of 2021
5. The further submission of the appellant is that, at any rate,
the appellant was acquitted in either case and if the appellant could
refer to one case where he was acquitted, there was no reason for
him to deliberately omit any reference to another case where also
he had been acquitted.
6. By the judgment and order impugned, the Writ Court
primarily dwelt on the scope of judicial review and observed that
the primary assessment that is made in this jurisdiction is to look at
the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. The
judgment clearly brings out the distinction between the scope of
judicial review and the assumption of appellate authority.
7. One need not surmise as to what may have impelled the
appellant to indicate one of the two criminal cases that he faced and
not the other. It is possible that the appellant, by referring to the
details of one case, may have dispelled any suspicion for the would-
be employer to undertake any exercise to ascertain whether the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.236 of 2021
appellant was also involved in some other case. Equally, the reason
to mention one and not another may have been that if repeated
cases were shown, the would-be employer may have had a bad
impression of the appellant. Whatever may have been the reason,
it is not open to the appellant to now contend that since the only
answer sought to Question No.15 was in the affirmative or the
negative, the additional details furnished by the appellant would be
irrelevant.
8. The order of the respondent authorities challenged in the
writ proceedings was issued on November 2, 2018. Such order
indicates cogent grounds and refers to the suppression by the
appellant of the other criminal case that had been brought against
the appellant and which had not been alluded to in the application.
It was a view that was possible to be taken by the respondent
authorities on the set of facts that presented themselves as a
consequence of the manner in which the appellant answered the
relevant question. Once so much is seen that a possible view could
have been taken on a set of facts as they panned out before the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.236 of 2021
relevant administrative authority, the Writ Court would not supplant
its view and disregard the possible view indicated in the order which
is challenged before it. The Court of the first instance in the
present case took relevant considerations into account and found
that the action complained of was not completely unjustified. For
reasons best known to the appellant herein, he had gone on to
furnish details in aid of his affirmative answer to the question, but
had failed to disclose the complete particulars. The respondent
authorities cannot be faulted for perceiving that the appellant had
suppressed the matter relating to the other criminal case, lest the
appellant be found to be a rowdy or the like.
9. In the circumstances, the judgment and order impugned do
not call for any interference. The appellant has to suffer the
consequences of the appellant's conscious decision to answer the
question the way the appellant did. The respondent authorities
cannot be faulted for finding the appellant unsuitable for the
position, considering that it was a responsible post for which the
appellant had applied.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.236 of 2021
W.A.No.236 of 2021 is dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
03.02.2021
Index : Yes
sasi
To:
1. The Superintendent of Police
Vellore District.
2. The Director General of Police
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylaore, Chennai – 4.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.236 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
sasi
W.A.No.236 of 2021
03.02.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
