Madras High Court
C. Vinoth Kumar vs The Chairman on 10 November, 2021
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
and
WMPMD) Nos.5123,5125 and 7291 of 2020
C. Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police
Kamarajar Salai, Chennai- 600 004.
3. The Commissioner of Police
Law and Order, Commissioner of Police
Trichy City
4. The Inspector of Police
Golden Rock Police Station
Ponmalai, Trichy City ... Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus call for the entire records relating
to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.
A2/11059/2020 dt. 13.03.2020 and quash the same and consequently
directing the respondents to issue a appointment order to the petitioner to
the post of Gr-II Police constable.
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Maheshwaran
For Respondents : Mr. R.Suresh Kumar
Government Advocate (Civil)
ORDER
This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the third
respondent in Na. Ka. No.A2/11059/2020 dated 13.03.2020 rejecting the
candidature of this petitioner on the ground that a criminal case is pending
against the petitioner at the time of filing application
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has applied
for the post of Gr.II Constable and he is having all qualifications to be
appointed as Gr.II Constable. He attended the written exam held on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
25.08.2019 and secured 57 marks out of 80 marks and thereafter he was
subjected to physical endurance test, wherein he has secured 12 marks out
of 20 marks, in total the petitioner has secured 69 marks out of 100 marks.
Therefore, he is fully eligible for appointment to the post of Gr.II constable
post.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the
year 2019 a criminal case was registered against the petitioner at the
instance of his neighbour, on a petty wordy quarrel and that case also ended
in acquittal on 11.11.2019. The petitioner has also informed about the
criminal case pending against him in his application dated 28.03.2019 and
there is no suppression. The case pending against him also ended in
acquittal during the course of selection process itself. However, the
respondent has rejected the candidature of the petitioner stating that the
acquittal of the petitioner is not a honorary acquittal. The learned counsel in
support of his conention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Avtar Singh .vs.Union of India and others reported in (2016)8 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents submits that as per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police
Service Rules, the follwoing criteria have to be fulfilled by the candidates
for appointment under the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services :
i) That he is of sound health, active habits and free from
any bodily defect are infirmity unfitting him for such service
and
ii) That his character and antecedents are such as to
qualify him for such service
iii) That such a person does not have more than one wife
living and
iv) that he heas not involved in any criminal case before
police verification.
Explanation(1) A person who is acquitted or discharged
on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact thta the complainant
turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in criminal
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
Explanation(2) A person involved in criminal case at the
time of police verification and the case is yet to be disposed of
and subsequently ended in Third honourable acquittal or
treated a mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved ina
criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by
participating in the next recruitment.
5.The learned Government Advocate further submits that as per Rule
14(b) of TNPSS Rules, in Explanation (2) it is clearly stated that only if
the case ended in honourable acquittal or treated as Mistake of Fact the
candiate shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim
right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment. But the
petitioner has been acquited of the charges in C.C. No. 145 of 13 only on
benefit of doubt. As per explanation (1) of Rule 14(b) of TNPSS Rules,
since the petitioner is acquitted on benefit of doubt, he shall be treated as a
person involved in a criminal case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
6.The learned Government Pleader further submits that the provisions
of Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Special Police
Subordinate Services have been followed both in forum and in substance
and while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have
scrupulously followed Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu
Special Policce Subordinate Services and that there is no violation at all as
alleged the petitioner. More over, the petitioner has supressed the regitration
of case, against him in Crime No.387 of 2015 under Section 75(1)( C) of
the Tamil Nadu City Police Act in the application.
7.In response to the abvoe, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that this petitioner has mentioned about the case pending against
him in Crime No.60 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324
and 506(ii) of IPC. The case has been taken on file in C.C. No.993 of 2019
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V and during trial none of
the witnesses has spoken against the petitioner and the order of acquittal has
been passed in favour of the petitioner by the Trial Court on 11.11.2019.
However the trial Court while recording the findings, has not recorded it as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
a honourary acquittal. In sofar as Crime No.387 of 2015 is concerned it is
only for the offence under Section 75(1)(C) of TNCP Act, it has been
closed on payment of fine amount and it is only for a trivial offence.
Therefore, the same need not be mentioned , in view of the dictum laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh .vs.Union of India and
others reported in (2016)8 SCC 471.
8. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions
and perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. Similar issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble apex Court in
Avtar Singh .vs.Union of India and others reported in (2016)8 SCC 471,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:
“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain
and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid
discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
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.
38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the
Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the 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 recourse 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
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 appoint
the candidate.
38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully declared in
character verification form 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
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 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”.
10. The petitioner had involved in two cases namely in Crime No. 60
of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and
the same has been taken cognizance in C.C. No. 993 of 2019 and the said
case ended in acquittal. The another case in Crime No.387 of 2015 for the
offence under Section 75(1)( C) of the TNCP Act and in that case he has
paid some fine amount. The third respondent has rejected the candidature of
this petitioner on the ground that he has involved in cases in crime No.387
of 2015 and in Crime No.993 of 2019. The case in Crime No.60 of 2019
was disposed on benefit of doubt and not as honorary acquittal as
contemplated in Rule 14(b) of TNPSS Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh .vs. Union of India and
others reported in (2016)8 SCC 471 held that cases trivial of 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 the post in question, the employer may, in its discretion,
ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the
lapse. Therefore the case in Crime No. 387 of 2015 may not be an
impediment in considering the case of the petitioner.
12. Insofar as other case in Crime No.60 of 2019 is concerned the
petitioner has mentioned the same in his application and there is no
supression . The case was taken on file in C.C. NO.993 of 2019 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V. Trichy and ended in acquittal on
11.11.2019. None of the witnesses, except the Investigating Officer has
spoken about the occurrence. The case was also registered at the instance of
a neighbour and he has not supported his case, when he was examined
before the Trial Court. Therefore the trial court deciced the case with an
order of acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court has issued certain guidelines in respect
of deciding the involvement of the candidates in a criminal case for
recruitment. However, the impugned order has not been passed by following
the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh's case.
14.In the light of the above, the impugned order passed by the third
respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner afresh by taking into account the
guidelines issued in Avtar Singh's case cited supra.
15.This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.11.2021
Index : Yes / No.
Internet: Yes / No.
aav
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
To
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Director General of Police
Kamarajar Salai, Chennai- 600 004.
3. The Commissioner of Police
Law and Order, Commissioner of Police
Trichy City
4. The Inspector of Police
Golden Rock Police Station
Ponmalai, Trichy City
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
aav
W.P(MD)No.5931 of 2020
and
WMPMD) Nos.5123,5125 and 7291 of 2020
10.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
