Madras High Court
S.Kalyanasundaram vs 6 The Superintendent Of Police on 2 August, 2022
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 2.8.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.21901 & 21902 of 2021
1 S.Kalyanasundaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Principal Secretary,
Home Dept., Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
2 The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office
Campus, Egmore, Chennai- 8.
3 The Member Secretary,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office
Campus Egmore, Chennai- 8.
4 The Director General of Police,
O/o. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai- 600 004.
5 The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
O/o. The Deputy Inspector General,
Salem Range, Salem.
6 The Superintendent of Police
Namakkal District, Namakkal. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the 5th Respondent in his proceedings
RC No.A2/ 3372/ 2021 dated 28.08.2021 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for
appointment to the post of sub Inspector of Police in pursuant to the
notification No.2/2019 dated 08.03.2019 within the period that may be
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Calvin Jones
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel
For Respondents 1,4,5&6 : Mr.P.Ganesan, G.A.
******
ORDER
The petitioner, challenging the impugned order of rejection dated
28.08.2021 passed by the 5th respondent, has filed the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner has applied for the post of S.I. of Police pursuant
to the notification issued by the respondent, dated 8.3.2019, qualified in the
written examination, Physical Test and he got provisionally selected for the said
post. However, to his shock and surprise, the 5th respondent passed the
impugned order of rejection dated 28.08.2021 on the ground that the petitioner
has suppressed the involvement in the criminal case in Crime No.130 of 2010 on
the file of Pulivalam Police Station, Trichy for the offences under Sec.147, 323
of I.P.C. r/w Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1987. Challenging
the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition before this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case, vide judgment dated
27.01.2011 in CC.No.168 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur
and the said judgment was delivered before the notification and therefore, on
the date of submitting application by the petitioner, there was no criminal case
pending against the petitioner and therefore, there is no legal impediment for
the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment to
the post of S.I. of Police and prays for quashing the impugned order of
rejection.
4. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents submits that at the time of submitting the application, the
petitioner has not disclosed about his involvement in the criminal case in the
relevant column of the application submitted for the post of S.I. of Police. As
per Rule 14(b) (ii) & (iv) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service, a
candidate being selected for the posts in Police Service should not involved in
any criminal case and having good character. The judgment of acquittal has
been passed only on benefit of doubt and therefore, the respondents have
rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of
S.I. of Police for the year 2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
5. This Court has considered the submissions made and also
perused the materials available on record.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the criminal case in
CC.No.168 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur for the
offence under Sec. Sec.147, 323 of I.P.C. r/w Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Ragging Act, 1987 was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 27.01.2011. The
judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court on the basis of benefit of
doubt and considering the antecedents of the petitioner, the impugned order
has been passed. According to the petitioner, on the date of submitting
application to the said post, there is no legal embargo to consider the
petitioner's name for selection to the post of S.I. of Police. However, it is the
stand of the respondents that the petitioner has suppressed the involvement in
the criminal case and further, the acquittal in the criminal case on the ground
of benefit of doubt cannot be a ground to claim appointment.
7. This Court in W.P.No.31601 of 2017 has dealt with an identical
issue and the relevant portion of the order, dated 09.01.2020, are extracted
hereunder:
“7.The Division Bench of this Court in an identical issue in
W.A.Nos.626, 627, 816 to 825 and 159 of 2014, considered the
scope of rejection of the candidature to the post of Grade II Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
Constable and following the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme
Court in Avtar Singh case (supra), observed that the involvement of
the candidate in a criminal case may have adverse impact, the
appointing authority would take a decision after considering the
seriousness of the case and directed the Director General of Police
to consider the case of the petitioner therein in the light of the
decision rendered by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh
case, wherein the Hon-ble Supreme Court held as under :
“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.
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 he
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
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 from 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.
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.”
8. In the light of the decision of the Hon”ble Supreme Court in the
case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471] as well the Division
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
Bench of this Court Court in W.A.Nos.626, 627, 816 to 825 and 159 of 2014,
followed by this Court in W.P.No.8565 of 2019 dated 23.08.2021 [P.Ramasamy v.
The ADGP, Chennai], to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.08.2021 passed by the
5th respondent in proceedings in RC.No.A2/3372/2021 is set aside and the
second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's selection for the post
of S.I. of Police afresh and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period
of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The Writ Petition stands allowed with the above directions. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
2.8.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vaan
To
1 The Principal Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu, Home Dept., Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
2 The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Egmore, Chennai- 8.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
3 The Member Secretary,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus Egmore, Chennai- 8.
4 The Director General of Police,
O/o. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai- 600 004.
5 The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
O/o. The Deputy Inspector General, Salem Range, Salem.
6 The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal.
W.P.No.20637 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.21901 & 21902 of 2021
2.8.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
