V.Ramesh vs 4 The Superintendent Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 13682 Mad

                                                                                  W.P.No.15900 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.15900 of 2021
                                              and W.M.P.No.16800 of 2021

                  1     V.Ramesh                             ...              Petitioner


                                        Vs.

                  1     The Member Secretary
                        Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment
                        Board, No.807 P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya
                        Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

                  2     The Director General of Police,
                        Office of The Director General of Police,
                        No.1, Dr. Radhkrishnan Salai,
                        Mylapore, Chennai -4.

                  3     The Deputy Inspector General
                        of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.

                  4     The Superintendent Of Police
                        Office Of The Superintendent Of Police
                        Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannamalai.    ...     Respondents




                  Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
                  for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Na.
                  Ka.No. A2/5178/2021 dated 08.07.2021 on the file of the 3rd respondent and
                  quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the
                  post of Sub Inspector.



                  1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  W.P.No.15900 of 2021

                                  For Petitioner           : Mr.M.Selvan
                                  For Respondent No.1      : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
                                                             Additional Advocate General
                                                             assisted by Mrs.Sowmi Dattan
                                  For Respondents 2 to 4      Mr.P.Ganesan, G.A.


                                                        ORDER

The petitioner, challenging the impugned order of rejection dated

8.07.2021 passed by the third respondent, has filed the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner has applied for the post of Grade II Police

Constable in pursuant to notification issued by the respondent in the year 2019,

qualified in the written examination, Physical Endurance Test and he got

provisionally selected for the said post. However, to his shock and surprise, the

second respondent has passed the impugned order of rejection dated 8.07.2021

on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the involvement in the

criminal case in Crime No.187/2016 for the commission of offences under

Sections 376, 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. and Sec.6 of POCSO Act. Challenging the

same, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, vide judgment dated 23.07.2018

in SC.No.16/2018 on the file of the Sessions/Fast Track Mahila Court,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15900 of 2021

Tiruvannamalai and the said judgment was delivered before the notification and

therefore, there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner on the date

of submitting application by 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 Grade II Police Constable and prays for quashing of

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 Grade II Police

Constable. As per Rule 14(b) (ii) & (iv) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate

Service, a candidate being selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable

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 Grade II Police Constable for the year 2019.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made and also

perused the materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15900 of 2021

6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the criminal case in

S.C.No.16 of 2018 on the file of Sessions Court/Fast Track Mahila Court,

Tiruvannamalai for the commission of offence under Sec.376, 354, 294(b), 506(i)

of I.P.C. and Sec.4 & 8 of POCSO Act 2012 was ended in acquittal by judgment

dated 23.07.2018. The judgment passed by the Sessions 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, in the aforesaid

criminal case, the petitioner was arrayed as A2 for the offence under Sec.294(b)

and 506 (i) of I.P.C. Alone, whereas in respect of A-1, the case was registered for

the offence under Sec.376, 354, 294(b), 506(i) of I.P.C. and Sec.4 & 8 of POCSO

Act 2012 and therefore, there is no legal embargo to consider the petitioner's

name for selection to the post of Grade II Police Constable. 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.15900 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.15900 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.15900 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 08.07.2021 passed by the

third respondent in Na.Ka.No. A2/5178/2021 is set aside and the second

respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's selection for Grade II Police

Constable 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 petition is also closed.

                                                                                           2.8.2022

                  Index       : Yes / No
                  Internet    : Yes / No
                  vaan
                  To
                  1 The Member Secretary

Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807 P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2.

2 The Director General of Police, Office of The Director General of Police, No.1, Dr. Radhkrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai -4.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15900 of 2021

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

vaan 3 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore.

4 The Superintendent Of Police Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannamalai.

W.P.No.15900 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.16800 of 2021

2.8.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis