Madras High Court

D.Sathiyaraj vs Director General Of Police on 18 January, 2021

                                                                                W.P.No.18867 of 2013

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 18.01.2021

                                                            CORAM

                                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

                                                   W.P.No.18867 of 2013

                     D.Sathiyaraj                                          ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                     1.Director General of Police
                       Tamil Nadu P.S.
                       Mylapore,
                       Chennai – 600 004.

                     2.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Cuddalore,
                       Cuddalore District.                                 ... Respondents


                     Prayer:
                                   Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
                     pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated

                     20.06.2011 in Na.Ka.157172/           epakdk; 1(2)/2011   with regard to Tamil
                     Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board and quash the same and
                     consequently direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner in
                     the post of constable.

                                        For Petitioner  : Mr.J.Suresh
                                        For Respondents : Mr.P.Chinnadurai
                                                          Additional Government Pleader



                     1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                W.P.No.18867 of 2013

                                                     ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the

impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 20.06.2011 in

Na.Ka.157172/ epakdk; 1(2)/2011 with regard to Tamil Nadu

Uniformed Service Recruitment Board and to quash the same and to

consequently direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner in

the post of Constable.

2.The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the

respondents called for application for the post of Grade II Constable

and the petitioner applied to the said post. Earlier, the petitioner was

implicated in a criminal case registered in FIR No.16/2008 for the

offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of the Indian

Penal Code. The said case was, thereafter, assigned with C.C.No.72 of

2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore and

the petitioner was acquitted by the said Court on 26.08.2009 on the

ground of benefit of doubt. The petitioner's appointment was refused

on account of the above said criminal case. Hence, this writ petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18867 of 2013

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Writ

Petition No.38296 of 2005, which was relied upon by the first

respondent to deny appointment to the petitioner, is not applicable to

the case on hand. Further, as the petitioner was acquitted from the

criminal case by the the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore,

the past pendency of the same cannot be taken into account for denial

of appointment to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

non-disclosure of the pendency of criminal case is only due to lack of

knowledge and not an intentional one.

5.In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied on the following decisions:

(i) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2016(8) SCC 471.

(ii) W.P.(MD)No.24995 of 2018, dated 08.01.2019 [V.Vasanth vs. The

Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board].

(iii) Ram Kumar v. State of U.P [2011(6) CTC 440].

(iv) Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar [2011(4) SCC 644].

(v) Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra, dated 12.10.2018

[Civil Appeal No.10571 of 2018].

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18867 of 2013

6.With the above background and drawing the attention of this

Court to the above cited decisions, the learned counsel for the

petitioner prayed for appropriate orders in favour of the petitioner, as

he is entitled for appointment.

7.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondents/State would submit that the

non-disclosure of the pendency of the criminal case in the application

amounts to suppression of material facts. In a matter of public

employment, the applicant should be vigilant and has to fill up the

application in a proper manner. Without doing so, the petitioner, now,

cannot contend that such suppression was due to lack of knowledge.

Even if the petitioner fill up the column regarding criminal antecedents

in such a manner, the employer has got every right to decide about

the antecedents of the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner is

eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Grade II Police

Constable, is vested within the domain of the employer. The

application form issued to the petitioner contained a question relating

to the involvement of a candidate in any criminal case. Therefore, the

petitioner is duty bound to make a true disclosure while filling up the

form. The failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18867 of 2013

case at the earliest point of time when the application form is filled up,

is fatal and the subsequent disclosure will not cure the defect.

8.The learned Additional Government Pleader, in support of his

contentions, relied on the following judgments:

(i) Manikandan v. Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services [2008(2) MLJ

1203].

(ii) Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh [2013(7) SCC 685].

(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Abhijit Singh Pawar

[2018(6) CTC 659].

9.I have considered the submissions made on either side and

perused the materials available on record including the judgments

relied on by both parties carefully and meticulously.

10.After examination, on antecedents enquiry, it was found that

as against the petitioner a criminal case in FIR No.16/2008 was

registered and thereafter the petitioner was acquitted by the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore on 26.08.2009 on the ground of

benefit of doubt. The impugned order proceeds to say that as per Rule

14(b) (iv) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18867 of 2013

Service Rules [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'], for the post of

Grade II Police Constable, if the applicant has been acquitted from a

criminal case on the ground of benefit of doubt or on the ground that

the complainant turned hostile, the applicant should be treated as if he

was involved in the criminal case and as per the order of this Court in

W.P.No.38296 of 2005, dated 28.02.2008, the amended Rule 14(b) of

the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules is

not ultra vires or unconstitutional and the rejection of the candidature

either on the basis of involvement in criminal case or on the basis of

suppression of involvement is perfectly valid and justified. Therefore,

the appointment of the petitioner was rejected, considering his

antecedents.

11.It is pertinent to note that the suppression of a material fact

to be a vitiating factor. The failure of a person to disclose in the

application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or the

pendency of a criminal case against him, would entitle the appointing

authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a

material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18867 of 2013

12.It is also to be noted that when the failure of a person to

disclose his involvement in a criminal case when the application form is

filled up, is fatal, his subsequent disclosure will not cure the defect and

the same would give right to the appointing authority to reject his

candidature on the ground of suppression and antecedents.

13.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 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.

14.The issue at hand was elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court very recently in State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep

Kumar reported in 2018(1) SCC 797. The relevant paragraphs of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18867 of 2013

said judgment read thus:

"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.........

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18867 of 2013

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 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."

15.The above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cleared the

cloud of suspicion on the issue raised herein.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.18867 of 2013

16.Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in State (UT of

Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar reported in 2018(1) SCC 797, if the

facts of the present case is analysed, this Court has no hesitation to

hold that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting

the candidature of the petitioner is absolutely correct and the same

does not call for any interference.

17.Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

18.01.2021 pri

Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No