Madras High Court
K.Enamanan vs The Director General Of Police on 7 January, 2021
W.P.No.54 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.54 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.83 of 2021
K.Enamanan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Thiruvarur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records
connected with the impugned order dated 12.03.2020 in
Na.Ka.No.A3/8300/2019 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Pothiraj
Spl. Govt. Pleader
*****
ORDER
Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition, challenging the order
passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/8300/2019 dated 12.03.2020, by
which the candidature of the petitioner for the recruitment of Grade II Police
Constable-TSP, Grade II-Jail Warden and Fireman, for the year 2019 was not
considered for appointment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.54 of 2021
2. According to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated by the
Thiruvarur Town Police Police in respect of Crime No.366 of 2014 for offences
under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC, which culminated into a Charge
Sheet in S.T.C.No.319 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvarur. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was acquitted from
the said criminal case, he did not disclose the factum of the criminal case at
the time of application to the post of Grade II Police Constable-TSP, Grade II-
Jail Warden and Fireman. It is the further case of the petitioner that to the
shock and surprise, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order, refusing to
consider the petitioner for appointment to the said post.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
documents available on record, including the judgment cited by the
respondents.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner had involved in a criminal case and
therefore, he cannot casually ask for a suitable appointment in the Police
Department, which is otherwise known as a Disciplined Force. Even though the
petitioner stated that he was acquitted from the criminal case, it was not on
merits, but on the ground benefit of doubt and therefore, in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, reported in 2018 (18) SCC 733,
he is not entitled to the relief sought for. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.54 of 2021
case referred to supra went on to add that despite disclosure of antecedents
by a candidate, it is well within the ambit of the employer to consider the
same as well as the suitability of the candidate. It was also made clear in the
judgment that the employer has every right to take into account the severity
of charges, nature of acquittal, etc., to suit the job profile, for which the
selection is undertaken.
5. In yet another case in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others,
reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue
of suppression of material facts in an elaborate manner and observed as
follows:
“22. The employer is given ‘discretion’ to terminate
or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once
employer has the power to take a decision when at the
time of filling verification form declarant has already been
convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious
that all the facts and attending circumstances, including
impact of suppression or false information are taken into
consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent
for services in question. In case the employer come to the
conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts
would have been disclosed would not have affected
adversely fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be
recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However,
while doing so employer has to act prudently on due
consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered.
For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very
high and even slightest false information or suppression may
by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However
same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In
concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been
suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an
incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be
justified in not appointing or if appointed to terminate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ services of such incumbent on due consideration of various
W.P.No.54 of 2021
aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully the
employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing
so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature
of offence etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has
been made, employer may consider nature of offence,
whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt
on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is
unfit or dubious character. In case employer comes to
conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal
case would not affect the fitness for employment
incumbent may be appointed or continued in service.”
6. A Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manikandan and
others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, Chennai, reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97, had considered the scope of
Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 in the
light of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) and held that a person
acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be
considered as disqualified for selection to the Police service and the failure of
a person to disclose in the application form, either of his involvement in a
criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle the
appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of
material facts, irrespective of ultimate outcome of the criminal case.
7. In the result, finding much force in the contention of the
respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot demand appointment
in a disciplined force rightfully and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief
in this Writ Petition.
Accordingly,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
W.P.No.54 of 2021
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
ar
To:
1. The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Thiruvarur District.
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ ar
W.P.No.54 of 2021
W.P.No.54 of 2021
07.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
