Madras High Court
P.Silambarasan vs The Chairman on 17 April, 2025
W.P.No.4143 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 19.02.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 17.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.4143 of 2022
and
WMP.No.4277 of 2022
P.Silambarasan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Officer Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The State of Tamil nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
W.P.No.4143 of 2022
Coimbatore District. ...Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order issued by 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.A4/54120/2021 dated
05.01.2022 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law and
consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Grade
II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Service within the time
stipulated by the Hon'ble court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fazil,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.01.2022 of
the 4th respondent, rejecting the petitioners candidature for selection to Grade II
Police Constable post in Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Service, on the ground of
non disclosure of previous criminal case in his application.
2.The petitioner applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable-AR,
recruitment for which post applications were called for in 2020. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
successfully cleared the written examination and physical test. The petitioner
submitted his original certificates for verification on 26.07.2021, and after
evaluation of the application, the Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board,
published final provisional selection list on 25.11.2021, provisionally selecting the
petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable-AR under the sports quota.
While the petitioner was anxiously awaiting the appointment order, the petitioner
received the impugned order dated 05.01.2022, rejecting his candidature for non
disclosure of previous criminal case. The respondents invoked Rule 14 (b)(ii) and
(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, for
rejecting the petitioners candidature for non disclosure of his involvement in a
petty case under Section 75(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888, which
culminated in a Crl. Case in Cr.No.625 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate VI, Coimbatore. The Criminal Court found the petitioner guilty and
fined him Rs.400/-, which he paid on the same day. According to the petitioner,
the impugned order failed to note the triviality of the offence under Section 75 of
the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888. The petitioner further stated that as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
offence was petty, it would not come within the ambit of moral turpitude, so as to
bar him from Government Service. The petitioner further stated that the impugned
order was passed in violation of para 38(4) of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and
others ((2016) 8 SCC 471), wherein leverage was given to cases of petty nature.
The petitioner therefore prayed that impugned order was unsustainable and same
deserved to be set aside.
3.The respondents filed detailed counter stating inter alia that the Director
General of Police and Head of Police force Tamil Nadu, Chennai, assessed police
verification of character, antecedents and medical examination of candidates who
were provisionally selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable. It was
further submitted that, at the time of verification, it was found that the petitioner
was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.625 of 2019, under Section 75(1)(c)
of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888. The petitioner was arrested on
14.08.2019, and the case was taken on file on 30.08.2019. The petitioner was
convicted before the learned Judicial Magistrate VI and fine of Rs.500/- was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
imposed on 30.08.2019. According to the respondents, as the petitioner failed to
mention his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case in the application in the
verification column in S.No.15 and 16, the petitioners candidature was rejected by
invoking Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Subordinate Service Rules, 1978.
The respondents relying on Full Bench judgment of this court dated 28.02.2008,
and certain other judgments of this court as well the Hon'ble Apex court, stated
that the impugned order could not be found fault with, as the same was passed
because of suppression of the petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case. The
respondents therefore stated that the writ petition deserved no merit and hence
liable to be dismissed.
4.I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials available
on record.
5.The crux of the issue in the writ petition is whether the impugned order
rejecting the petitioners candidature for non disclosure of the criminal case is valid
or not.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
6.The facts are undisputed and therefore the same are not traversed. In the
impugned order, it was stated that the petitioner had suppressed his involvement in
criminal case in Crime No.625 of 2019, for the offence committed under Section
75(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, which was disposed with imposition
of fine of Rs.500/-. In the impugned order, Rule 14(b)(ii) and (iv) of the Tamil
Nadu Special police Subordinate Rules, 1978, was invoked to reject the
petitioner’s candidature.
7.The respondents relying on Rule 14(b) (ii) and (iv) of the T.N. Special
Police Subordinate Rules, 1978, submitted that the Hon’ble Full Bench in
Manikandan Vs. The Chairman, held that under explanation I to clause (iv) of the
Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services Rules, a person acquitted on
benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, could still be considered as
disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and that the same could
not be termed as illegal or unjustified; and that the failure of a person to disclose
in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
of a criminal case against him, entitled the appointing authority to reject his
application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the
ultimate outcome of the criminal case.
8.True, the Full Bench has held that the respondents are entitled to reject the
application of a person on the ground of concealment of a material fact,
irrespective of the outcome of the criminal case. The issue is not as much as the
entitlement of the respondents to reject the candidature of the petitioner on the
ground of non-disclosure of criminal case, but the manner in which the power was
exercised. In this regard the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar
Singh Vs. Union of India and others ((2016) 8 SCC 471), which is a benchmark
Judgment on the aspect is relevant. In the said Judgment while acknowledging the
power of the employer to verify the antecedents of the candidate and to cancell the
candidature of the candidate, for suppression of material information, the Court
also held that the candidate though had no unfettered right to appointment, had
nevertheless a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. The Court held that the power
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
to cancell the candidature needed to be exercised in a reasonable manner with
objectivity, having due regard to the facts of the case.
9.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 38 of the Judgment after referring to
several Judgments, summarised its conclusions in Para’s 38.1 to 38.11. For the
purpose of the present case it would suffice to refer to paras 38.4.1 to 38.4.3which
read as follows:
“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 has 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
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.”
10.Admittedly in the present case the petitioner was fined for his
involvement in a petty case under Section 75(c) of the Chennai City Police Act.,
1888. The petitioner was aged about 23 years at the time of the offence. In my
view a chance for reformation could have been afforded to the petitioner who was
only 23 years, when the offence occurred. The respondents in my view could have
exercised their discretion by treating it as “follies of Youth”. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and
others ((2016) 8 SCC 471) , in para 37, while dealing with the inter play of
reformative theory with the power of respondents to cancel the candidature held in
para 37 as follows:
“37. The “McCarthyism” is antithesis to constitutional
goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders
in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors
to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for
cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.”
11.The respondents seem to have mechanically exercised the power to
cancel the candidature on the ground of non disclosure, without taking an
objective view of the matter with reference to various factors like the nature of the
post, the duties attached to it, the petty nature of criminal offence and its adverse
impact on the selection of the candidate etc. In my view mere non-disclosure of
criminal antecedent would not ipso facto entail cancellation of the petitioner’s
candidature, but a holitistic view of all aspects should be objectively considered
before rejecting the candidature. I am fortified in my view by the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2022 SC 2829 in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs.
Union of India and others. Pertinently the said Judgment related to the
appointment of a constable as in the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the said case held as hereunder in para 13.
“13.What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this
Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal
has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be
discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke
of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of
material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is
left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and
circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the
objective criteria and the relevant service Rules into
consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding
continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being
noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false
information in a given case does not mean that the employer can
arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.”
12.The above said Judgment has been followed in the case of
Ravindrakumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2024(5) SCC
264. In my view the Judgments relied on by the respondents on the facts of the
case, do not deserve merit.
13.On a conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in
view of the unequivocal statement of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
Court in the cases referred to above, I am of the view that the impugned order
deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to be remitted to the fourth
respondent for fresh consideration. The impugned order is therefore set aside, the
matter is remitted to the fourth respondent for consideration in the light of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgments referred to herein before. The respondent is
directed to consider the matter afresh and pass orders on merits and in accordance
with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
14.The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
dsn/ah
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Officer Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
N.MALA,J.
dsn
Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.4143 of 2022
Order Pronounced on 17.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:58:27 pm )
