Madras High Court
K.Ayyanar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 July, 2023
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.07.2023
(Reserved on 13.07.2023)
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8010 of 2023
K.Ayyanar ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore,
Chennai-8.
3. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore,
Chennai-8.
Page 1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
4. The Director General of Police,
O/o. the Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-600 004.
5. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
against the order dated 22.03.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.14277 of
2021.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel, for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr.D.Sachikumar
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
The above appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ
petition filed by the appellant in W.P(MD)No.14277 of 2021 dated
22.03.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ
appeal are as follows:-
The appellant participated in the process of selection for the post
of Sub Inspector of Police, pursuant to the Recruitment Notification
No.2/2019 dated 08.03.2019. He was successful in the written
examination and he was allowed to participate in the physical
verification test and endurance test. However, the appellant's
candidature was rejected on the ground that he had suppressed the
fact regarding registration of criminal case against him both at the
time of submission of online application and at the time of verification.
Challenging the non selection, the appellant filed writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.14277 of 2021. The fact that the appellant has
suppressed his involvement in the criminal case in the online
application as well as during verification roll is not in dispute.
However, it is contended before the learned Single Judge and before
this Court that the criminal case in C.C.No.128 of 2012 ended in
acquittal even on 31.03.2015 and that therefore the appellant did not
mention his involvement as the appellant bonafidely believed that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
there was no criminal case registered against him was pending at the
time of submitting application and police verification.
3. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that non
disclosure of the involvement in the criminal case for petty offences or
cases that are trivial in nature cannot stand in the way of considering
the appellant's candidature. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that mere suppression is not a ground to reject the
appellant's candidature and the 5th respondent ought to have
considered the appellant's candidature with reference to the facts of
the criminal case, findings in the judgment passed in the criminal case
and the suitability of the appellant to the post. Referring to the
judgment in the criminal case, learned Senior Counsel submitted that
the criminal case pending against the appellant also ended in acquittal
on merits.
4. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon an unreported
judgment of this Court dated 05.06.2023 passed in a batch of writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
appeals. The lead case is W.A(MD)No.938 of 2020 between the
Director General of Police and others vs. K.Indhu Kumar, wherein, this
Court after referring to several judgments, has summarized the
following proposition of law:-
''19. In the light of the above said deliberations, the
preposition of law could be summarized as follows:
(a). In case of honourable acquittal, discharge, case closed
as mistake of fact, quashing of F.I.R/Charge Sheet before
the date of police verification, the same should be
considered in favour of the candidate in the current
selection itself.
(b).Where the candidate has been acquitted on the ground
of benefit of doubt or hostility of witnesses (before the date
of police verification), that would not confer any right upon
the candidate to claim appointment as a matter of right. It
is for the employer to consider the suitability of the
candidate based upon his conduct and antecedents only if
the offences are trivial in nature.
(c).Where the criminal case has been quashed ( before
police verification) on the basis of a compromise and the
offence is of trivial in nature, the same can be considered
in favour of the candidate in the current selection itself.
However, if the offence involved is not of a trivial in nature,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
the same cannot be considered for appointment.
(d).Where a candidate having knowledge about his
involvement in a criminal case had suppressed the same in
his application and the said offence is not trivial in nature,
he is not entitled to seek any appointment. On the other
hand, in cases of trivial offences, without knowledge about
his involvement or after having knowledge had suppressed
his involvement, the employer in his discretion is entitled to
consider the candidature by considering his character and
past antecedents.
(e).Where the candidate is involved in petty/trivial cases
like family dispute or dispute with neighbors or shouting of
slogans or traffic offence where fine was imposed, the
same can be considered to be offence of trivial/petty in
nature. However, the offence against women, children or
under NDPS Act should never be considered to be an
offence of trivial in nature.
(f).Where the candidate is involved in criminal offences
under Juvenile Justice Act, he/she is to be considered in the
light of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated
01.03.2023 in Rev.Apln.No.17 of 2023 in W.A.No.2759 of
2018 (The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District
Vs.S.Rajeshkumar)
(g). Pending the recruitment process, if a candidate is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
discharged from the criminal case or acquitted in the
criminal case, he/she shall be eligible to be considered for
the next recruitment process as per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil
Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules.''
5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General relied upon
several precedents which would be discussed in the later paragraphs
of this judgment and submitted that the order of the learned Single
Judge is perfectly in order and that there is no ground made out to
interfere with the said judgment.
6. The facts are not in dispute. In this case, the appellant
was charged for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 of IPC.
Though the charges are for serious offences, the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, Chennai, acquitted the appellant while
disposing of C.C.No.128 of 2012, by judgment dated 31.03.2015.
Paragraph 14 of the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Poonamallee, is relevant and it reads as follows:-
''14.vdnt> nkny Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s rq;fjpfisg; ghprPypj;Jg; ghh;f;ifapy;>
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
m.rh.1 kUj;Jtkidapy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;l gpd;gj [ hd; kUj;Jtkidapy; g[fhh;
thf;FK:yk; mspj;Js;shh;. g[fhh; thf;FKyj;jpy; vjphpfspd; bgah;fisf;
Fwpg;gpl;L g[fhh; mspj;jpUe;j nghjpYk;> kUj;Jtkidapy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;lnghJ
rk;gtkhdJ xapd;\hg;gpy; ele;jjhfnth> jd;id ahh; jhf;fpdhh;fs; vd;gJ
Fwpj;njh> jdf;F fhaq;fs; vt;thW Vw;gl;lJ vd;gJ Fwpj;njh vJt[k;
Twtpy;iy. ,t;tHf;fpd; g[yd; tprhuiz mjpfhhpahd m.rh.7 jhd;
brhy;ypjhd; vjphpfspd; bgah;fs; m.rh.1f;Fj; bjhpa[k; vd;W xg;g[f;bfhz;Ls;shh;.
mt;thnw m.rh.2-k; xg;g[fb; fhz;Ls;shh;. vdnt> rk;gtj;jpd;nghJ jd;idj;
jhf;fpath;fspd; bgah;fs; ,t;tHf;fpd; vjphpfspd; bgah;fs;jhdh vd;gjid
m.rh.7-d; K:ykhf kl;Lnk m.rh.1 mwpe;Js;shh;. ,t;tHf;fpd; g[fhh;
thf;FK:yj;jpd;go rk;gtkhdJ m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2 kJf; filapy; kJ
mUe;jpf;bfhz;oUe;jnghJ Vw;gl;l jfuhwpd;nghJ fhaq;fs; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ
vd;gJ bjhpa tUfpwJ. m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2 gpw;gfy; 2.00 kzpapypUe;J 3.00
kzptiu kJ mUe;jpf;bfhz;oUe;jjhf m.rh.1 xg;g[fb; fhz;Ls;shh;. m.rh.1I
kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;Jr;brd;wtUk; kJf;filapy; ,Ue;jtUk;> m.rh.1-d;
cwtpdUkhd m.rh.4 muR jug;g[ tHf;fpidr; rhh;e;J rhl;rpak; mspf;fhky;
gpwH; rhl;rpahfg; ghtpf;fg;gl;L muR jug;gpy; FWf;F tprhuiz
bra;ag;gl;Ls;shh;. vdnt vjphpfs; jug;g[ thjj;jpd;go kJ mUe;jpapUe;j m.rh.
1 kw;Wk; 2-f;F jfuhwpd;nghJ fhaq;fs; Vw;gl tha;g;g[s;sJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk;
fUJfpwJ. vdnt rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;g[ vjphpfisg; ghh;f;fhj m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2
rk;gtj;jpw;Fg; gpwF Kjy; Kiwahf ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rhl;rpak; mspf;Fk;nghJ
mth;fs;jhd; m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2-f;;F fhaj;ij tpistpj;jhh;fs; vd;W rhl;rpak;
mspj;jpUg;gJ ,aw;ifahft[k;> KGikahft[k; ek;gj; jFe;jjhf mikatpy;iy
vd;Wk;> vdnt re;njfj;jpd; gyid vjphpfSf;F ey;FtJ ePjpapd;ghy; cfe;jJ
vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;fpwJ. vdnt> ,t;tHf;fpd; m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2-
f;F ,t;tHf;fpd; vjphpfs;jhd; fhaj;ij tpistpj;jhh;fs; vd;W jPh;khdpf;f
KoahJ vd Kot[ bra;J ,g;gpur;ridf;F tpilaspf;fg;gLfpwJ.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
7. It is not in dispute that as per Rule 13 of the Special Rules
for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, a candidate should satisfy
the appointing authority that he has not involved in any criminal case
before police verification. The appellant has filled up his online
application form by marking ''No'' to the query namely, ''Whether any
criminal case have been filed against you?''. In the police verification
roll at Serial Nos.15 and 16, the candidates were requested to answer
the queries namely, ''Have you ever been concerned in any criminal
case as defendant?'' and ''Have you ever been arrested or convicted
and sentenced undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or
other offence? If so, give details with C.C.No. and Court''. The
appellant has answered ''NIL'' for the aforesaid two queries.
8. From the remarks made by the appellant at the time of
submitting his online application and thereafter in the police
verification roll, it could be seen that the appellant has suppressed his
involvement in the criminal case, which of course, ended in his favour
by acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
The appellant has not only suppressed his involvement in the criminal
case, but also failed to establish his suitability.
9. The Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan and others
vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97, has considered suppression as
fatal in certain cases. The observation of the Full Bench in paragraph
35 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
''Thus the above latest decision of the Apex Court has
cleared the cloud of suspicion on the issue. Therefore we
hold that the failure of a person to disclose his involvement
in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the
application form is filled up, is fatal. His subsequent
disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will
not cure the defect. In any case, the subsequent disclosure
may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case
will then fall under any one of the 2 Explanations under
clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the
current selection or for all future selection depending on
whether the acquittal is honorable or otherwise.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
10. In Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 8
SCC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
''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 an 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.
33. .......
34. No doubt about it that verification of character
and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess
suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge
antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should
be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of ‘material’ information presupposes
that what is suppressed that ‘matters’ not every technical
or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due
consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of
powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating
the services of employee. Though a person who has
suppressed the material information cannot claim
unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service
but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and
exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with
objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.''
11. In the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar in
Civil Appeal No.4960 of 2021 dated 25.08.2021, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has categorically held that the autonomy or the choice
of the public employer is greatest and that the process of decision
making cannot be interfered with unless the decision is illegal, unfair
or lacking bona fides. In the said judgment, it is observed as follows:-
''30. The High Court’s approach, evident from its
observations about the youth and age of the candidates,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour
which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The
impugned order indicates a broad view, that such
misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age
of the youth and the rural setting. This court is of opinion
that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the
offender’s conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and
should be avoided. Certain types of offences, like
molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault,
causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of
weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be
indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour. Each case
is to be scrutinized by the concerned public employer,
through its designated officials- more so, in the case of
recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to
maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to
inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.''
12. From the rules and the object behind the verification of
criminal antecedents, this Court is unable to accept the contention of
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the
appellant did not suppress any material fact and that his failure to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
disclose the verdict of acquittal in the criminal case is not wilful. The
contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the offences alleged
against the appellant in the aforesaid criminal case are trivial in
nature, also cannot be countenanced. Similarly, the findings of the
criminal court in C.C.No.128 of 2012 clearly show that the acquittal
was not honourable and that the appellant was discharged from the
case only based on the benefit of doubt. Each case is to be
scrutinized by the public employer concerned. For the query namely,
''whether any criminal case have been filed against you?/ck;kPJ
VnjDk; Fw;w tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjh?, the appellant has
answered ''No''. Therefore, the appellant's candidature was rejected.
The order impugned in the writ petition reveals the fact that the
appointing authority has considered every factual detail furnished by
the appellant and came to the conclusion that the appellant has
suppressed the vital information about his criminal antecedents and
therefore held that he is not suitable to the post. The operative
portion of the order dated 02.08.2021 reads as follows:-
''5. nkYk;> jkpH;ehL rpwg;g[f; fhty; rhh;epiy gzpj;bjhFjp tpjp vz;.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
14(b)(iv) ,d; fPHhd tpsf;fk; 1d; go Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lth; re;njfj;jpd;
gyid rhjfkhf bgw;nwh my;yJ g[fhh;jhuh; gpwH;rhl;rpahf khwpajhnyh
tpLtpf;fg;gl;lhy;> tpz;zg;gjhuh; Fw;w tHf;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;ltuhfnt fUjg;gl
ntz;Lk; vd mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;Ls;ssJ kw;Wk; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk;> hpl; kD
vz;.38296/05,y; 28.02.08 md;W tHq;fpa jPh;g;gpy; tpz;zg;gjhuh; jdJ
tpz;zg;gj;ij g{h;jj ; p bra;a[k; nghJ jhd Fw;w tHf;fpy; <Lgl;lijnah my;yJ
jd; kPJ Fw;wtpay; tHf;F epYitapy; ,Ug;gijnah kiwg;gJ> epakd mjpfhhp
tpz;zg;gjhuhpd; kDit mtuJ cz;ikia kiwf;Fk; nehf;fj;jpy;
bray;gl;lij fUj;jpw;bfhz;L> mth; kPjhd Fw;w tHf;fpd; Koit
fUj;jpw;bfhz;Lk;> mtuJ tpz;zg;gj;ij epuhfhpf;fyhk; vd Miz
gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
6. vdnt> nkw;fz;l ePjpkd;w Mizfs; kw;Wk; muR tpjpfspd; go
Fw;w tHf;fpy; re;njfj;jpd; gydhf tpLtpf;fg;gl;ljpd; mog;gilapYk;>
tpz;zg;gjhuhpd; FzeyDk; Ke;ija elj;ija[k; bjhlh;ghf nfhug;gl;l
tptuq;fs;> tpz;zg;gjhuuhy; kiwf;fg;gl;l epiyapy; (suppression of fact
by the petitioner) tpz;zg;gjhuh; elj;ij jpUg;jpfukhf ,y;iy vd;gjpd;
mog;gilapYk; jq;fis rhh;g[ Ma;thsh; gjtpf;F gzp epakdk; bra;a ,ayhJ
vd;w tptuk; jq;fSf;F bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.''
13. From the facts elaborated in this judgment and the order
by which the appellant's candidature was rejected, this Court holds
that the non selection of the appellant by the impugned order is
perfectly in order and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed
the writ petition for want of merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
14. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R, J.] [D.B.C., J.]
27.07.2023
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bala
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
3. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
4. The Director General of Police,
O/o. the Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai-600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
5. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bala
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.1053 of 2023
DATED : 27.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
