Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Tr.E.Sugumar on 21 September, 2021
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By the Secretary of Government
Home Department
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu District
i/c Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram ... Appellants
-vs-
Tr.E.Sugumar ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to
set aside the order dated 16.12.2020 made in W.P.No.7229 of 2020 and
allow the Appeal and thus render justice.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Government Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan
*****
ORDER
(Judgement of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.)
Instant Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2020
made in W.P.No.7229 of 2020.
2. Mr.Sajeev Kumar, learned Government Counsel appearing for the
Appellants submitted that the Respondent failed to disclose his involvement
in a criminal case, as required under Rules 13 & 14 of the Tamil Nadu
Special Police Subordinate Service Rules and therefore, the learned Single
Judge ought not to have interfered with the order impugned in the Writ
Petition. When a person is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt on the
ground of witnesses turning hostile, the candidature will have to be rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
2.1. Learned Government Counsel further submitted that admittedly,
there was a criminal case pending against the Writ Petitioner / Respondent
herein and therefore, the Authority was right in rejecting the candidature of
the Writ Petition. The learned Government Counsel also relied upon a
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, reported in 2018 (18) SCC 733 and
contended that in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the
candidature was rightly rejected.
2.2. Learned Government Counsel also submitted that disclosure about
the criminal case has not been duly made in the application and his
involvement has been subsequently found out through Tamil Nadu Police
Verification Roll in Column No.16. The act of the Respondent in not
disclosing in the application is fatal to his case. When there is a suppression
in the application , rejection on that score is correct and the candidature has
been rightly rejected for non disclosure.
3. Per contra, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
the Writ Petitioner / Respondent herein submitted that a case was registered
as early as in the year 2015 for offences under Sections 294 (b), 352 and
506(i) of IPC, pursuant to a family quarrel, and the dispute between the
family members was resolved by way of compromise on 10.03.2016. On the
date of application filed in the year 2020, there was no criminal case pending
against the Writ Petitioner / Respondent and therefore, the disclosure of
criminal case does not arise at all. In support of his contention, he also
referred to the very same judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh and others Vs Abhijit Singh Pawar reported in 2018 (18)
SCC 733, wherein it was held in respect of determination of suppression and
false information as follows:-
“12.A three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of
India was required to consider the difference of opinion in decisions of
this Court on the question of suppression of information or submission of
false information in the verification form on issues pertaining to
involvement in criminal cases and the effect thereof. The law on the point
was settled by this Court in following terms in paragraph No.38 of its
decision as under:
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
summarise 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.A.No.2367 of 2021
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 a acquittal had already
been recorded before filing of the application/verification form and such
fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses
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 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 a 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
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 know but not known to
the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse
impact and he appointment 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.
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 supressio veri or
suggestion falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”
14. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had
applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was
entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed.
On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal
under Section 320 (8) CrPC, the law declared by this Court in Mehar
Singh, specially in paras 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue.
Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be
well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of
the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take
into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the
severity of the charges leveled against the candidate and whether the
acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the
ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
4. In reply, learned Government Counsel submitted that the acquittal of
the Respondent from the criminal case was not an honourable one and in case
of benefit of doubt, there is no impediment for the Appellants to summarily
reject the candidature, as the compromise between the parties will have to be
treated on par with the one of acquittal on benefit of doubt. Thus, it was
prayed that the order of the learned Single Judge will have to be reversed and
the impugned order in the writ petition has got to be restored.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material
documents available on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the Writ Petitioner / Respondent herein had
involved in a criminal case on 11.03.2015, for which a case has been
registered under Section 294 (b), 352 and 506 (i) of IPC and the same was
tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram. It is also not in
dispute that the said case ended in an acquittal on account of compromise on
10.03.2016. On a reading of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 733 (supra), cited by both parties, it could be seen
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
that there was actually non-disclosure of fact therein and a criminal case was
also pending, whereas, in the present case on hand, the criminal case ended in
a compromise as early as on 2016 and an application for selection has been
filed in the year 2020. There are certain offences, which could be
compounded in terms of Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C. provided it falls within the
norms mentioned therein, even if it is serious in nature. The Employer,
depending upon the grave nature of the offences, de hors compromise, can
ignore the compromise, by treating it to be the one of acquittal on benefit of
doubt and reject the case. But, it does not mean that all the cases have to be
rejected without application of mind
7. In the present case on hand, the criminal case was registered for a
wordy quarrel amongst family members and the issues between them stood
compromised. The offences, for which a criminal case was registered against
him, cannot be treated to be the serious one, attracting the provisions of
offences, which are heinous in nature.
8. The Writ Petitioner / Respondent herein has not disclosed about the
criminal case in the application and the Appellants later on found out his
involvement in the criminal case through Verification Roll. The offence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
which is minor in nature and is compoundable (even though foisted) cannot
be seriously taken note of in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2016) 8
SCC 417. If a serious offence, like non-compoundable has been committed
by the Respondent, definitely, the candidature needs to be rejected. Even
after appointment, a candidate can be removed for the non-disclosure of the
offence that comes to light at a later point of time, as it can be construed that
initial appointment itself is irregular and illegal. Therefore, non-disclosure of
the criminal case in the application by the Respondent cannot be treated to be
a suppression. In case, the criminal case is still pending and the same was
found during verification, obviously, the Respondent is not entitled to any
relief in terms of Paragraph No.14 of the judgment (cited supra). In the
present case on hand, the application was made in the year 2019 and the
compromise was entered into in the year 2016.
9. One of us (SVNJ), while sitting singly, had an occasion to deal with
the similar situation in W.P.No.9621 of 2020 dated 24.07.2020. In that case,
the employee had involved in serious offences and in that situation it was held
that the employee cannot casually ask for suitable employment in police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
department, which is otherwise known as disciplinary force and rejected the
relief sought for, after considering Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police
Subordinate Services.
10. In the present case on hand, on the date of application, there was
no criminal case pending against the Respondent and the family dispute
culminated into a criminal case was amicably settled. Learned Single Judge,
considered all those aspects and granted the relief to the Writ Petitioner. The
Apex Court in (2018) 8 SCC 733 drew a distinction between acceptance and
rejection of the candidature in Paragraph No.14 of the said judgment and the
present case on hand falls under the exceptional category as found mentioned
in Clause 38 of Paragraph No.12 of the judgment, as the offence is not a
serious one.
11. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are in entire
agreement with the views taken by the learned Single Judge and are not
inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
12. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, as devoid of merits. No
costs.
[S.V.N.J.,] [A.A.N.J.,]
21.09.2021
dpq
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy on 08.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
dpq
W.A.No.2367 of 2021
21.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
