Madras High Court
S.Suresh vs The Director General Of Police on 28 March, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD) No.826 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 28.11.2024
Pronounced On : 28.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
W.A(MD) No.826 of 2022
S.Suresh ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
2.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road,
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents / Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 02:54:59 pm )
W.A(MD) No.826 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying
this Court to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.17190 of 2021,
dated 24.03.2022 by allowing the writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
for Mr.S.Saji Bino
Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. The appellant herein participated in the combined recruitment
for the post of Grade-II Police Constables, Grade-II Jail Warders and
Firemen for the year 2019. The application was submitted on 02.04.2019.
He appeared in the written examination on 25.08.2019 and succeeded.
He was successful in the physical test and endurance test held from
06.11.2019 to 09.11.2019. Thereafter, the police verification was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 02:54:59 pm )
conducted. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul however disqualified
the petitioner for appointment vide order dated 16.09.2021 on the ground
that the appellant had suppressed his involvement in the criminal case
when he submitted the application for recruitment to the post of Grade-II
Police Constable. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed W.P.
(MD)No.17190 of 2021. The writ petition was dismissed vide order
dated 24.03.2022. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the
contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and called
upon this Court to set aside the impugned orders and grant relief.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that the issue raised in these proceedings is no longer res integra. He
pointed out that admittedly, the appellant was involved in a criminal
case. It is true that it was subsequently quashed. But then, quashing was
based on the compromise between the parties. The appellant did not
secure honourable acquittal. The appellant seeks appointment in an
Uniformed Force. Therefore, the employer is entitled to insist that only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 02:54:59 pm )
those persons whose record is totally clean alone would be eligible to
become a member of the service. Relying on a catena of decisions, he
submitted that the learned single Judge rightly declined to interfere in the
matter. He called upon this Court to sustain the impugned orders and
dismiss the writ appeal.
5. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the materials on record.
6. It is true that the appellant was shown as the first accused in
Crime No.206 of 2019 on the file of the Sanarpatty Police Station. The
appellant's father and mother were shown as co-accused. The defacto
complainant was none other than his paternal uncle. A reading of the
FIR would show that there was some dispute regarding ancestral
property. The appellant is said to have slapped and pushed down the de-
facto complainant. According to the appellant, it was a false case and
that he was not at all involved. Be that as it may, FIR was lodged only
on 19.05.2019 and the occurrence said to have taken place on
18.05.2019. Admittedly, the application was submitted by the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 02:54:59 pm )
on 02.04.2019 itself. Thus, on the date when the application was
submitted, there was no criminal case against the petitioner. The third
respondent was therefore wrong in proceeding on the premise that the
appellant was guilty of suppression of the material facts. It is seen that
even before police verification, the FIR was quashed on 10.09.2019
itself. All these facts were informed during police verification also. We
are therefore satisfied that the appellant cannot be held guilty of
suppression of the material facts. On the other hand, the order the third
respondent suffers from non-application of mind.
7. The next question that calls for consideration is whether the
appellant should be disqualified because he was shown as the first
accused in Crime No.206 of 2019. Even though there are quite a few
precedents that are adverse to the appellant, the recent decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court appears to favour the appellant. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2024) 5 SCC 264 (Ravindra
Kumar Vs. State of U.P) held as follows:
“32. The nature of the office, the timing and
nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of
the judgment of acquittal; the nature of the query in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 02:54:59 pm )
application/verification form; the contents of the
character verification reports; the socio-economic
strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents
of the candidate; the nature of consideration and the
contents of the cancellation/termination order are some
of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial
verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the
nature of relief to be ordered”.
8.In this case also, the appellant comes from a very similar
background. He belongs to a Most Backward Community. He is said to
be the first graduate in the family. He has no bad antecedents. The
defacto complainant was none other than his paternal uncle. The
allegations set out in the FIR are also not serious. The fact that the
appellant's mother and father have been shown as co-accused would
show that it was more a family dispute over ancestral property.
Considering the trivial and petty nature of the offence registered against
the appellant, we are of the view that the aforesaid decision can very well
be applied and relief granted to him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 02:54:59 pm )
9. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ
petition as well as the order impugned in the writ appeal are set aside.
The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant as Grade-II Police
Constable and he shall be sent for training at the earliest opportunity.
The appellant will be entitled to get the benefits only from the date when
he reports for duty. He cannot have any claim for backwages. In all
other respects, he will be placed on par with his batchmates.
10. The writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
(G.R.S., J.) (P.V.M.,J.)
28.03.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
rmi
To
1.The Director General of Police, Chennai.
2.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 02:54:59 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
P.VADAMALAI, J.
rmi
28.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 02:54:59 pm )
