Madras High Court
P.S.Selva Vinoth vs The Director General Of Police on 30 June, 2022
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD) No.5293 of 2022
P.S.Selva Vinoth ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
O/o. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters,
Chennai – 4.
2.The Inspector General of Police (Welfare),
O/o. The Inspector General of Police (Welfare),
Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters,
Chennai – 4.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District Police,
Madurai – 7. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying
to set aside the order dated 24.03.2022 in W.P(MD)No.17916 of 2020
and allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/9
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)
Challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated
24.03.2022, made in W.P.(MD) No.17916 of 2020, the petitioner in the
writ petition has preferred the above appeal.
2. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.Veera Kathirvan, learned Additional Advocate General,
assisted by Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate, who
accepts notice for the respondents.
3. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are
as follows:
Pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the Tamil
Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, the appellant applied to the
post of Grade – I Police Constable for the year 2017-2018. The appellant
attended the written examination and secured 62 marks and qualified for
Physical Verification Test and Endurance Test. He has also passed in the
Physical Verification Test and Endurance Test. However, the appellant
received a communication from the Superintendent of Police, Madurai,
dated 26.09.2020 informing that the appellant was not appointed as his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/9
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
antecedents were not satisfactory and that the appellant who got himself
involved in two criminal cases had suppressed his involvement in the
criminal cases. This communication was challenged by the appellant
before the learned Single Judge.
4. It is admitted by the appellant himself that a complaint was
registered against him and his family members in Crime No.111 of 2017
for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii)
I.P.C. Though it is stated in the communication, dated 26.09.2020, that
there were two cases registered against him, it is stated by the appellant
that the appellant was shown as accused only in one case and the
statement of facts recorded by the third respondent in the impugned
order is not correct. The counsel for the appellant has also convinced this
Court that there was only one case against him and he was released on
anticipatory bail. It is further stated that the criminal complaint that was
registered against the appellant was also quashed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.
1466 of 2019.
5. Learned Single Judge after referring to the decided cases,
particularly the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar in C.A.No.4960 of 2021
dated 25.08.2021, dismissed the Writ Petition only on the ground that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/9
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
the Court cannot consider the suitability, eligibility and the antecedents
of the individual overlooking the decision of the Selection Committee in
this regard.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v Union of
India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, particularly to paragraph 38.4,
which reads as follows:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/9
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
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.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar v.
Union of India & another in C.A.No.3574 of 2022, dated
02.05.2022, wherein it has been held as follows:
“17. Adverting to the facts of the instant
case, at the time of attestation form filled by the
appellant, the criminal case was already
registered against him but it may be noticed that
at the very threshold, the complainant filed his
affidavit that the complaint on which FIR came to
be registered was due to misunderstanding and
he did not want to pursue his case any further,
but still charge sheet came to be filed and on the
first date of hearing, the alleged victim PW.1 did
not support case of the prosecution and thus the
order of clean acquittal came to be passed by the
learned Judge of competent jurisdiction by
judgment dated 12th August, 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/9
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial
nature and the nature of post and nature of
duties to be discharged by the recruit has never
been looked into by the competent authority
while examining the overall suitability of the
incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules
1987 to become a member of the force. Taking
into consideration the exposition expressed by
this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our
considered view the order of discharge passed by
the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is
not sustainable and in sequel thereto the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of High
Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves
to be set aside.”
Referring to the said judgments, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the third respondent did not consider the issue as it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. This Court is unable to agree with the submissions of learned
counsel for the appellant as the portion of judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case (supra) relied upon by appellant's
counsel is not applicable to the present case for the simple reason, in the
present case, the appellant has suppressed the fact that criminal case, in
which, the appellant was shown as accused was pending and it is
admitted that the appellant has suppressed this in his application. In para
32 of Avtar Singh case (supra), it is stated as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6/9
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
“32.No doubt about it that once verification
form requires certain information to be furnished,
declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and
any suppression of material facts or submitting
false information, may by itself lead to
termination of his services or cancellation of
candidature in any appropriate case. However, in
a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted
and case is pending trial, employer may well be
justified in not appointing such an incumbent or
in terminating the services as conviction
ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and
employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of
criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or
submitting false information would assume
significance and that by itself may be ground for
employer to cancel candidature or to terminate
services.”
Since the non-disclosure of the information about the pending criminal
case is fatal as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh
case (supra), this Court has no reason to interfere with the impugned
order of learned Single Judge.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is
granted to the appellant to participate in fresh selections and the
appellant's candidature can be considered, if he discloses his involvement
in the criminal case promptly and it is for the respondents to decide the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7/9
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
suitability of the appellant in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case (supra). No Costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
[S.S.S.R.,J] [S.S.Y.,J.]
30.06.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
sj
To
1.The Director General of Police,
O/o. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters,
Chennai – 4.
2.The Inspector General of Police (Welfare),
O/o. The Inspector General of Police (Welfare),
Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters,
Chennai – 4.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District Police,
Madurai – 7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8/9
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
and
S.SRIMATHY,J.
sj
W.A(MD)No.636 of 2022
30.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9/9
