Madras High Court
Mr.T.Velusamy vs The Chairman on 9 February, 2022
W.A.No.999 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No. 999 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.12230 of 2020
Mr.T.Velusamy ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Cop Campus, Patheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kadathur Police Station,
Dharmapuri-635 303. .... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, to set aside the order
dated 27.04.2019 in W.P.No.34763 of 2018 and allow the Writ Appeal.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.G. Prabhakar
For Respondents : Mr.P. Ananda Kumar
Government Advocate
*****
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN.,J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ.,J
The present Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 24.07.2019 in W.P.No.34763 of 2018, in dismissing the Writ Petition filed
by the Appellant/Writ Petitioner.
2. The Appellant/Writ Petitioner participated in the selection process to the Post
of Grade II Police Constable, Grade II Jail Warder and Fireman for the year 2017-2018
and he was successful in the written examination and appeared for physical verification
test. Though the Appellant/Writ Petitioner had completed the process of certificate
verification, was waiting the appointment order, his candidature was rejected by the
Second Respondent vide order dated 02.11.2018 on the ground that a criminal case
against the Appellant/Writ Petitioner was pending in P.R.C.No.12/2018. In the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
order, it is stated that there was a suppression of information in respect of involvement
in the criminal case. It is further stated that according to Tamil Nadu Special Police
Subordinate Service Rule No.13 (b) & (e), the following criterion should be taken into
account while recruiting candidates for the post of Grade II constable:
i. The candidate should not be involved in any
Criminal case and his previous antecedent and
conduct should be satisfactory and;
ii. if the candidate is found involved in a criminal
case, then the appointing authority can reject the
application of the candidate.
3. According to the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, he has not at all involved in any
criminal case, and the case in Crime No.41 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 341,
294b, 323, 109 I.P.C. and 3(1) of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984 has been falsely registered against him. But, the Competent Authority has
erroneously came to the conclusion that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner is not suitable for
appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable in the Uniformed Services. It is
further stated that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has not suppressed any material fact
and that the Criminal Court has honorably acquitted the Appellant/Writ Petitioner from
all charges, and hence the rejection of his candidature to the post of Grade II Police
Constables is illegal. It is submitted that Learned Single Judge without considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
various judgments relied upon by the Appellant simply dismissed the W.P.No.34763 of
2018 on 27.04.2019
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently
contended that in terms of Explanation (2) of Rule 14 (b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police
Subordinate Service Rules (TNSPSS), any person, who has involved in the criminal
case cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable,
Grade II Jail Warder and Fireman and hence, the case of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner
was rightly rejected. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) Union of India and Ors Vs. Methu Meda reported in
(2022) 1 SCC 1.
(ii) State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors Vs. Abhijit
Singh Pawar reported in 2018 (6) CTC 659.
5. He further contended that the Criminal Case ended in an acquittal on
26.11.2019 after the orders of the learned Single Judge and the learned Single judge,
after taking note of the facts and rules applicable has rejected the case of the petitioner
and the petitioner has no right to claim any benefit and he can claim right of
appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
6. Heard both parties. Perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has applied for the post of
Grade II Police Constable, Grade II Jail Warder and Fireman for the year 2017-2018.
Admittedly, a criminal case was pending in P.R.C.No.12/2018. It is also not in dispute
that the Appellant/Writ Petitioner has suppressed the fact about the criminal case. It was
argued on the side of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner that he has not suppressed any fact
and he has been subsequently acquitted from the case and therefore his case should be
considered positively. The said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that as, on
the date of the pronouncement of the order dated 27.04.2019, the criminal case was
pending against him and only thereafter ie., on 26.11.2019, the Appellant/Writ
Petitioner got an order of acquittal in the Criminal Court. At the same time, the
contention of the Government Advocate that a person who is involved in the criminal
case will not be eligible for appointment at any point of time also cannot be accepted.
Ofcourse, on the date of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the said
contention may be correct, but, as of now, since the appellant has already been acquitted
by the criminal Court there is no impediment for the respondents to consider his
candidature. This Court feels it relevant to extract the Explanation (2) of Rule 14(b) of
Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules (TNSPSS), which is extracted
below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
“Explanation (2): A person involved in criminal case
at the time of police verification and the case has yet
to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honorable
acquittal or treated as a mistake of fact shall be
treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can
claim right for appointment only by participating in
the next recruitment.”
8. A perusal of the Judgment of the Criminal Court dated 26.11.2019 would go to
show that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as against
the accused, thereby all the accused, including the Appellant were acquitted. For the
sake of convenience. Paragraph Nos:13)iii) & 13)iv) of the said Judgment is extracted
hereunder:
“13) iii) PW1 is the vital witness on the above said
case. However, his statement and evidences were not
substantially proved as against the accused in the
above said occurrence as well as the offence. Initially,
the case was registered U/s. 147 of IPC and later the
same was removed. According to the statement of the
PW1 apart from the accused, some other persons were
also attacked the PW1. The Doctor deposed that the
injury of the PW1 may also occur on a vehicle
accident. Since, PW1 didn't have any external injuries
in his body. In this complaint PW1 deposed that in the
morning at 8 a.m. He had disputes with the accused
person while taking reverse to his vehicle therefore,
there is no substantial evidence that the injury was
occurred only by the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
13) iv) After careful perusal of the documents and
evidences in all aspects, it is clear that the prosecution
failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt
U/s. 341 of IPC, that the accused 1 to 4 had intention
to stop the PW-1 vehicle on 26.02.2018 at Kannan
Malligai Store at 8 a.m and also the prosecution failed
to prove the case U/s.294(b) r/w 109 of IPC as against
the accused that they have used the filthy languages
and unparliamentary words and accused A2 to A4
assisted the A1 in committed the offence. The
prosecution fails to prove that the case against A1 to
A4 attacked the PW1 and caused hurt and also the
prosecution fails to prove the case against the A1 as
he used the stone to damage and other accused
assisted the 1st Accused. Therefore, the prosecution
fails to prove the case. Hence, the issues properly
solved by this court and acquitted based on the issues
framed by the court and accordingly answered.”
9. Further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others Versus Abhijit Singh Pawar reported in 2018 (6) CTC
656, it has been held as follows.
“13. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh
v. Union of India (supra) was required to consider the
difference of opinion in decisions of this Court on the
question of suppression of information or submission
of false information in the verification form on issues
pertaining to involvement in criminal cases and the
effect thereof. The law on the point was settled by this
Court in following terms in paragraph No.38 of its
decision as under:
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried
to explain and reconcile them as far as possible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise
our conclusion thus:
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 the
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
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 form
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
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.Before a person is held guilty of
suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be
attributable to him.
15. In the present case, as on the date when the
respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending
against him. Compromise was entered into only after
an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of
acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law
declared by this Court in Mehar Singh
(supra),specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely
concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made
by a candidate, the employer would be well within his
rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability
of the candidate.While so considering, the employer
can certainly take into account the job profile for
which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the
charges levelled against the candidate and whether
the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal
or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or
as a result of composition.
16. The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus
Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed
Imran (supra) is not quite correct and said decision
cannot be of any assistance to the respondent. In para
5 of said decision, this Court had found that the only
allegation against the appellant therein was that he
was travelling in an auto-rickshaw which was
following the auto-rickshaw in which the prime
accused, who was charged under Section 376 IPC,
was travelling with the prosecutrix in question and
that all the accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix
did not support the allegation. The decision in
Mohammed Imran (supra) thus turned on individual
facts and cannot in any way be said to have departed
from the line of decisions rendered by this Court in
Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and
Pradeep Kumar (supra).
17. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing
on record to suggest that the decision taken by the
concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of
the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides
or suffered on any other count. The decision on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
question of suitability of the respondent, in our
considered view, was absolutely correct and did not
call for any interference. We,therefore, allow this
appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single
Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss
Writ Petition No.9412 of 2013 preferred by the
respondent. No costs.”
10. We have not come across any order passed by a Sessions Court or the
Criminal Court acquitting the accused coined with the word Honorable acquittal, so as
to quickly arrive at a decision whether it is a honorable acquittal or acquittal on benefit
of doubt. It is true that if the charges are very serious in nature, certainly the candidature
of a person cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Uniformed Services as
observed by the Apex Court even in a case of compromise. However, when it is
contested, and judgment rendered on a full-fledged trial, then the Court may come to the
conclusion regarding the nature of acquittal, depending upon the facts of each case.
11. As stated supra, a reading of the Paragraph 13 (iii) and (iv) of the Judgment
passed by the criminal Court, shows that there is no evidence to establish the case
against Accused No.2, namely, the Appellant herein. But however, the Court has
rendered a finding that there is a benefit of doubt and not an honorable one.
12. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.Surendhar Versus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
Director General of Police reported in 2019 (6) CTC 465 has considered the point with
regard to Honorable Acquittal. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
"33. The question on merits in the present case,
however, takes a different turn inasmuch as the Order
impugned that seeks to disqualify and make the
Appellant ineligible for engagement, rests on the
finding that the Appellant had not been honourably
acquitted, and it was only a benefit of doubt on the
basis whereof the Acquittal Judgment was delivered in
favour of the Appellant. The question is as to the
interpretation of Rule 13(e) read with the
Explanations and in our opinion, the crucial word
which has to be taken into consideration to be read
with the Explanation is "involvement". The word
"involvement", therefore, is the guiding factor
inasmuch as the Rule clearly provides for a
declaration by the Candidate as to whether "he was
involved in a Criminal case or not".
34. The next question is whether such involvement
would necessary lead to the conclusion for the
Appointing Authority to hold as to whether he should
be selected and appointed for the services or not.
Involvement without knowledge is also a factor that
can eclipse any disadvantage or prospective
impediment in certain circumstances, as explained by
the Apex Court in the case of M.Manohar Reddy and
another v. Union of India and others, 2013 (1) LLN
331 (SC) : 2013 (3) SCC 99. Whether the fact or
information unknowingly withheld is at all a material
fact, is a matter of assessment on the peculiarity of the
material and its impact to be judiciously and
objectively assessed by the Employer without any
prejudice or preconceived notions to rule out any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
possibility of malice or pure subjectivity in the
decision making process. It is here that a play in the
joints has to be given to the Employer and unless such
a latitude is given, it will be injuncting the Authority
from exercising its discretion to engage a person
suitable for the post. We, therefore, find that an
Assessment has to be made by the Appointing
Authority as to whether the involvement of a
Candidate in a Criminal Case would ultimately lead to
the conclusion that his engagement would be
detrimental for the nature of the employment for
which he is being engaged. This may involve a bit of
subjectivity, but the material on record has to receive
an objective consideration. The question as to whether
a person was involved in a case of violating a mere
Traffic Rule or was involved in a heinous offence
would obviously weigh with the employer to assess as
to whether his engagement would otherwise be
sustainable or be detrimental for recruitment in a
Uniformed Police Force or not. We, therefore, leave
that open to the Authority concerned for an
independent Assessment. But, on the facts of the
present case, we find that the Authority has simply
rested its decision on the finding that the Appellant
did not deserve to be engaged on account of not
having been honourably acquitted. Whether the fact
of his involvement was such that this inference could
be justified does not appear to have been discussed in
the impugned order. To this extent, we accept the
argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant."
13. Ofcourse, we find no error apparent on the face of the order of the learned
Single Judge on the reasoning that the Appellant was not acquitted on the date of the
order of the learned Single Judge, which ultimately ended in dismissal of the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
petition. However, taking note of the fact that there is an honorable acquittal by the
Criminal Court with regard to the Appellant, the case of the Appellant can be
considered, in the light of the Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate
Service Rules (TNSPSS) and the Appellant can be considered for appointment against
the next vacancy in the category he belongs to by taking into account the selection
process already undergone and the marks obtained by him, provided the petitioner
satisfies all other conditions and does not involve in any other criminal case.
14. With the above observation and directions, this Writ Appeal is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.V.N., J.,] [M.S.Q., J]
09.02.2022
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
arr/rgm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.999 of 2020
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
and
J.MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ.,
arr/rgm
To:
1. The Chairman,
The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Cop Campus, Patheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Kadathur Police Station,
Dharmapuri-635 303.
W.A.No. 999 of 2020
09.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
