Madras High Court
I.Imran Khan vs 3 The Superintendent Of Police on 2 August, 2022
W.P.No.1249 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 2.8.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.1249 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.1349 & 1352 of 2022
1 I.Imran Khan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment
Board, No. 807 P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker
Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2 The Director General of Police,
Office of The Director General of Police,
No.1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3 The Superintendent of Police,
Office of The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri Distirct, Dharmapuri. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the 3rd
respondent dated 6.1.2022 made in Na.Ka.No.A3/27322/2021 and quash the
same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as
Grade II police Constable in Tamil Nadu Special police service pertaining to the
common Recruitment 2020 together with all service benefits.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1249 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel
For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr.C.Selvaraj, A.G.P.
*****
ORDER
The petitioner, challenging the impugned order of rejection dated
6.01.2022 passed by the third respondent, has filed the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner has applied for the post of Grade II Police
Constable pursuant to notification issued by the first respondent on 17.9.2020,
successfully passed the written examination, Physical Endurance Test and he got
provisionally selected for the said post. However, to his shock and surprise, the
third respondent has passed the impugned order of rejection dated 6.01.2022 on
the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the involvement in the criminal
case registered in Crime No.784 of 2019 for the offence under Sec.151 Cr.P.C.
Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal
case registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.784 of 2019 under Sec.151 Cr.P.C.
which is preventive detention and in the said case, action dropped by the Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1249 of 2022
and the F.I.R. also has been closed. The petitioner had no knowledge of the
registration of the F.I.R. until the impugned order was passed. Without taking
into account the aforesaid fact, the impugned order has been passed.
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. Therefore,
the respondents have rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable for the year 2020.
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.1249 of 2022
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the criminal case
has been registered against the pettioner in Cr.No.784 of 2019 under Sec.151
Cr.P.C. for preventive detention and in the said case, action dropped by the
Police and the F.I.R. also has been closed. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that petitioner has not involved in the said criminal case. Therefore, there is no
legal embargo to consider the petitioner's name for selection to the post of
Grade II Police Constable.
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1249 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1249 of 2022
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
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 6.1.2022 passed by the
first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/27322/2021 is set aside and the first
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1249 of 2022
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
2.8.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vaan
To
1 The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
No. 807 P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Maaligai,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2 The Director General of Police,
Office of The Director General of Police,
No.1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
3 The Superintendent of Police,
Office of The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri Distirct, Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.1249 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
W.P.No.1249 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.1349 & 1352 of 2022
2.8.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
