Madras High Court
S.Azees vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 January, 2021
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.No.8192 of 2013
&
MP.No.1 of 2013
S.Azees ... Petitioner
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Home (police) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Chennai - 4.
3. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,
Recruitment Board,
No.807, P.T.Lee. Chengalvaraya Naicker Maligai,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirupur District, Tirupur.
... Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th
respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.02/20500/2012 dated 21.12.2012 and
quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to appoint the
petitioner for the post of grade II constable.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Spl.GP
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the fourth
respondent, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the respondents called for
application for the post of Grade II Constable. The petitioner applied to the
said post and he successfully completed the written and physical tests and
was selected for appointment. However, by the impugned order, he was
informed that his candidature was rejected as he was involved in two
criminal cases and paid fine and that, the same were not brought to the
notice of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this
Court with the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without
providing any opportunity to the petitioner, the order impugned herein came
to be passed, which is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of
natural justice. He further submitted that without appreciating the facts and
circumstances under which the FIRs were registered and the nature of the
charges framed against the petitioner, the fourth respondent passed the
impugned order in a strait jacket manner, which discloses the non-
application of mind on the part of the respondent officials. It is also
submitted that the non-disclosure of the past criminal antecedents in the
application is not an intentional one, but due to lack of knowledge. Thus,
according to the learned counsel, the order impugned herein is liable to be
set aside.
4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents submitted that in a matter of public employment, the
applicant should be vigilant and has to fill up the application in a proper
manner, whereas the petitioner did not disclose his bad antecedents in the
application, which is suppression of material fact. Therefore, the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
passed by the fourth respondent, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner
in terms of the Rule position and also the decision of this Court rendered in
such matter, is perfectly right and the same warrants no interference at the
hands of this Court.
5.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
6.It is not in dispute that the petitioner was selected to the post of
Grade II Constable. However, after examination about his past conduct, it
was found that he was implicated as one of the accused in two criminal
cases viz., (i)Cr.No.3908 of 2011 registered on the file of Thiruppur North
Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323 and
506(ii) IPC; and (ii)Cr.No.5830 of 2011 registered on the file of the
Thiruppur North Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
279 and 337 IPC; and subsequently, the petitioner admitted his guilt and
paid fine in both the cases. Further, the said facts were not disclosed in the
verification Roll at Sl.Nos.15, 16 and 18 at the time of making application
to the said post. Taking note of those aspects, his candidature was rejected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
by the fourth respondent vide the order impugned herein, the operative
portion of which, is usefully extracted hereunder:
"3.muR tpjp vz;/101. cs; (fhty; 9) Jiw.
ehs;/30/01/2003 kw;Wk; jkpH;ehL rpwg;g[f; fhty; rhh;epiy
gzpj; bjhFjp tpjp vz;/14(b) d;go. ,uz;lhk; epiyf;
fhtyh; vzp epakdj;jpw;F xUth; vt;tpj Fw;w
thf;fpYk; rk;ge;jg;glhjtuhft[k; mtuJ Ke;ija
elj;ij kw;Wk; Fzeyd; jpUg;gjpfuhkhft[k; ,Uf;f
ntz;Lk;/ nkYk; jkpH;ehL rpwg;g[f; fhty; rhh;epiy
gzpj; bjhFjp tpjp vz;/14(b)(iv) d; fPHhd tpsf;fk;
1d;go Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lth; re;njfj;jpd; gyid
rhjfkhf bgw;nwh my;yJ g[fhh;jhuh; gpwH;rhl;rpahf
khwpajhnyh tpLtpf;fg;gl;lhy; tpz;zg;gjhuh; Fw;w
tHf;fpy; rk;ge;jg;gltuhfnt fUj ntz;Lk;/ brd;id
cah;ePjpkd;wk; hpl; kd; 38296-2005?y; 28/2/2008 md;W
tH';fpa jPh;g;gpy; tpz;zg;gjhuh; jdJ tpz;zg;gj;ij
g{h;j;jp bra;a[kn
; ghJ jhd; Fw;w tHf;fpy; <Lgl;lijnah
my;yJ jd; kPJ Fw;wtpay; tHf;F epYitapy;
,Ug;gijnah kiwg;gJ. epakd mjpfhhp
tpz;zg;gjhuhpd; kDit mtuJ cz;ikia kiwf;Fk;
nehf;fj;jpy; bray;gl;lik fUj;jpw;bfhz;L mth; kPjhd
Fw;w tHf;fpd; Kot[ vJthf ,Ug;gpDk; mtuJ
tpz;zg;gj;ij epuhfhpf;fyhk; vd Miz
gpwg;gpj;Js;sJ.
4/gj;jp xd;W kw;Wk; ,uz;oy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s
FiwghLfs; fhuzkhf. md;dhuJ Fzeyd; kw;Wk;
Ke;ija elj;ij jpUg;gjpfukhf ,y;iy vd;w
mog;gilapy;. mth; ,uz;lhk; epiy fhtyuhf gzp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
epakdk; bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;w tptuk; kDjhuUf;F
bjhptpf;fg;;gLfpwJ/"
7.It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that based on
the false complaint, the petitioner was implicated in the criminal cases and
the charges framed against him are not serious in nature and hence, he
admitted his guilt and paid fine as advised by the police officials. This Court
is not inclined to accept the same, as the compromise / settlement has to be
encouraged from the point of view of bringing peaceful and amicable
atmosphere in the society by according a quietus to disputes, besides
reducing arrears of cases and save the litigants from the agony of pending
litigation. However, such compromise / settlement cannot be entertained in
the matter of recruitment, that too in the Police force, without examining the
veracity of the same. Be it noted, the post of Constable in disciplinary force
demands an impeccable integrity and track record besides good character
and suitability.
8.Another explanation offered by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the suppression of the bad antecedents is not an intentional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
one, but due to lack of knowledge of the petitioner, which cannot be
countenanced by this Court. The failure of the petitioner to disclose his
involvement in the criminal cases at the earliest point of time i.e., filling up
the application form, is fatal to his case and the subsequent disclosure
would not cure the defect and hence, the appointing authority has every
right to reject his candidature on the ground of concealment of material fact,
irrespective of outcome of the criminal cases.
9.Emphasizing upon the importance of character and integrity
required for joining police force/discipline force, in the decision in
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh, (2013)
7 SCC 685], it was observed by the Supreme Court as under:
“The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the
great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public
order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence
in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing
to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He
must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having
criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is
acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has
been completely exonerated in the case because even a
possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to
the discipline of the police force.”
10.In a recent decision in State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep
Kumar [2018(1) SCC 797], it was held by Supreme Court as follows:
"13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal
case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the
post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents
and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post.
From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and
Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited
to the police service must be of impeccable character and
integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in
this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot
be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely
exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be
taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening
Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust
reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost
character.
14.........
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
15. From the above details, we find that the Screening
Committee examined each and every case of the respondents and
reasonings for their acquittal and taken the decision. While
deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case has been
acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police
force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an
honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt
because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution
are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee
for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the
post. As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined
each and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took
the decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of
Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as
per Guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is to ensure
that only persons with impeccable character enters police force.
While so, the court cannot substitute its views for the decision of
the Screening Committee.
16...........
17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity
and high standard of conduct in police force has been
emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the
Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide.
In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the
Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for
being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for
interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred
in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside."
11.Applying the aforesaid legal principle to the facts of the present
case, this Court is of the opinion that the decision taken by the fourth
respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is absolutely correct
and the same does not call for any interference.
12.In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.01.2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
av
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.8192 of 2013 & MP.No.1 of 2013
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
av
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home (Police) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
2. Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Chennai - 4.
3. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services,
Recruitment Board,
No.807, P.T.Lee. Chengalvaraya Naicker Maligai,
Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tirupur District, Tirupur.
W.P.No.8192 of 2013
&
MP.No.1 of 2013
04.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
