Madras High Court
C.Surendhar vs Director General Of Police on 4 August, 2022
W.P.No.8880 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.8880 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.8718 of 2022
C.Surendhar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Director General of Police,
Chennai-600004.
2.The Member Secretary,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600002.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Cuddalore District. ...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. A4/555/AR/2018-5, dated 05.02.2020 on the file of the 3rd respondent
and quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the
post of Grade II Police Constable.
For Petitioner : M/s. Bala and Daisy
For Respondents : Mr.P.Ganesan, G.A. - R1 & R3
Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG
assisted by
Mrs.Sowmi Datttan, Standing Counsel-R2
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8880 of 2022
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 for the year
2017-18, qualified in 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
05.02.2020 on the ground that the petitioner was involved in the criminal case
in Crime No.422/2011 for the commission of offences under Sections 147,
294(b), 332, 506(ii) of I.P.C. 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 on benefit of doubt, vide
judgment dated 09.02.2016 in C.C.No.59/2012 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Panruti 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. Further the
petitoner has filed a petition in Crl.OP.No. 29623 of 2018 before this Court to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8880 of 2022
declare the acquittal of the petitoner as honourable acquittal. This Court by
order dated 18.12.2018 passed orders stating that the acquittal of the petitioner
in C.C.No. 59 of 2012 is held to be as honourable acquittal 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 2017-18.
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.8880 of 2022
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the criminal case in
C.C.No.59 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Panruti for the
commission of offence under Sec. 147, 294(b), 332, 506(ii) of I.P.C was ended in
acquittal by judgment dated 09.02.2016. 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, in the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner was arrayed as
A2 for the offence under Sec.294(b), 332 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8880 of 2022
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8880 of 2022
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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8880 of 2022
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 05.02.2020 passed by the
third respondent in Na.Ka.No. A4/555/AR/2018-5 is set aside and the third
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 disposed of with the above directions.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
04.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ak
To
1.Director General of Police,
Chennai-600004.
2.The Member Secretary,
Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600002.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Cuddalore District.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8880 of 2022
ak
W.P.No.8880 of 2022
and W.M.P.No.8718 of 2022
04.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
