Madras High Court
C.Dilip Kumar vs 3 The Superintendent Of Police on 2 August, 2022
W.P.No.17460 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.17460 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.18545 of 2021
1 C.Dilip Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-600 004.
2 The Member Secretary
Tamil nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002
3 The Superintendent Of Police,
District Police Office, Vellore District
Vellore. ... Respondents
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
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings
dated 24.3.2020 in Na.Ka.No.A2(3)/171/18801/PV/2019 and to quash the same
as illegal and to consequently direct the respondents to appoint me in the post
of Grade -II Police constable TamilNadu state Police in par with the appointees
appointed vide Notification of the Respondents for the year 2019 with necessary
pay and all monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondents 1 & 3 : Mr.T.Arunkumar, A.G.P.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mrs.Sowmi Dattan, for R1
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17460 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner, challenging the impugned order of rejection dated
24.3.2020 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 and 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 24.3.2020
on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the involvement in the
criminal case in C.C.No.351 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate,
Gudiyatham for the commission of offence under Sections 294(b), 324(2 counts)
and 506(ii) of I.P.C. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the instant
writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in
the criminal case in C.C.No.351 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate,
Gudiyatham after full trial, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated
1.11.2019. Except the aforesaid case, no other criminal case is pending against
the petitioner and therefore, there is no legal impediment for the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17460 of 2021
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.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the criminal case in
C.CNo.351 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham for the
commission of offence under Sections 294(b), 324 (2 counts) and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 1.11.2019. The judgment passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17460 of 2021
the Judicial Magistrate Court on the basis of benefit of doubt. Considering the
antecedents of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. According
to the petitioner, as the criminal case registered against the petitioner was
ended in acquittal, 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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17460 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17460 of 2021
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
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 24.03.2020 passed by the
third respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2(3)/171/18801/PV/2019 is set aside and the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17460 of 2021
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 Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-600 004.
2 The Member Secretary
Tamil nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002
3 The Superintendent Of Police,
District Police Office, Vellore District
Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17460 of 2021
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
W.P.No.17460 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.18545 of 2021
2.8.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
