SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

P.Ramesh vs 2 The Superintendent Of Police on 23 January, 2020

W.P.No.33288 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.01.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

W.P.No.33288 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.36720 of 2017

1 P.Ramesh
S/o.V.Perumal,
No.4 Nadutheru, Kudapakkam
Puducherry-605 502. … PETITIONER

Vs.

1 The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board rep. by its Chairman,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road Egmore Chennai-8.

2 The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District Cuddalore. … RESPONDENTS

Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire
records passed by the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned
order passed in Na.Ka. No.A4/333/AR/ 2017-15 dated 10.10.2017 and quash
the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the
petitioner as Gr.II Police Constable.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sasindan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ramesh, A.G.P.

******

http://www.judis.nic.in
1/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

ORDER

Pursuant to the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed

Services Recruitment Board, the petitioner had applied for the post of

Grade II Police Constable. The petitioner successfully completed all the

tests conducted by the respondent Board including written examination,

physical test, etc., and qualified for the said post. Under these

circumstances, the impugned order, dated 10.10.2017 has been passed by

the second respondent stating that the petitioner’s selection was cancelled

on the ground that the petitioner had involved in a criminal case registered

against the petitioner in Cr.No.67 of 2016 by the Puducherry Traffic East

Police Station for the alleged offence under Sec.279 and 338 of I.P.C.

Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

an accident was occurred on 29.5.2016. The alleged offence made out in

the charge sheet is not a serious in nature. The petitioner received

summons from the judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry only after

submission of the attestation form and there is no wilful suppression of the

material facts. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that a case has

been registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.67 of 2016 by the

Puducherry Traffic East Police Station for the alleged offence under Sec.279

http://www.judis.nic.in
2/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

and 338 of I.P.C. The aforementioned offence is bailable offence.

Therefore, the impugned order, dated 10.10.2017 passed by the second

respondent is liable to be quashed.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed about his

involvement in the criminal case registered against him in Cr.No.67 of 2016

by the Puducherry Traffic East Police Station for the alleged offence under

Sec.279 and 338 of I.P.C. in column No.15, 16, and 18 of the application

submitted for the post of Grade II Police Constable. As per G.O.Ms.No.101

Home (Police X) Department, dated 30.01.2003 and Rule 14(b) (ii) (iv) of

Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service, a candidate being selected

for the post of Grade II Police Constable should not involved in any criminal

case and having good character. Further, in the judgment, dated 28.2.2008

of this Court in W.P.No.39298 of 2005, it is held that a person who is

discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant

turned hostile shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case and be

considered as disqualified for selection to the Police Service and shall not

be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment.

Considering the antecedents of the petitioner, the impugned order, dated

3.10.2017 has been passed by the third respondent. In support of his

http://www.judis.nic.in
3/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of State of M.P. others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar reported in 2018

(6) CTC 659.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned A.G.P. Appearing for the respondents and perused the materials

available on record.

5. The sum and substance of the case is that a candidate who has

been successfully passed all the tests conducted by the respondent Board,

his/her selection can be rejected or cancelled on the ground that he/she

involved in a criminal case registered against him or he/she had not

disclosed the criminal case registered against him/her in the application

submitted for the post of Grade II Police Constable.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in an identical issue in

W.A.Nos.626, 627, 816 to 825 and 159 of 2014, considered the scope of

rejection of the candidature to the post of Grade II Police Constable and

following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case

(supra), observed that the involvement of the candidate in a criminal case

may have adverse impact, the appointing authority would take a decision

http://www.judis.nic.in
4/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

after considering the seriousness of the case and directed the Director

General of Police to consider the case of the petitioner therein in the light

of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case,

wherein the Hon’ble Surpeme Court held as under:

”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 or false information by condoning the lapse.

http://www.judis.nic.in
5/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

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 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

http://www.judis.nic.in
6/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

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.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri
or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be
attributable to him.”

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P.

others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar reported in 2018 (6) CTC 659, held as

under:

”14. 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 the issue
of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal
under Section 320(8) CrPC, the law declared by this Court

http://www.judis.nic.in
7/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

in Mehar Singh [Commr. of Police v. Mehar Singh, (2013)
7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (LS)
910] , specially in paras 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.

15. The reliance placed by Mr Dave, learned Amicus
Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohd.
Imran [Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal
No. 10571 of 2018, order dated 12-10-2018 (SC)] is not
quite correct and said decision cannot be of any assistance
to the respondent. In para 5 of the said decision, this
Court had found that the only allegation against the
appellant therein was that he was travelling in an
autorickshaw which was following the autorickshaw 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 Mohd.

Imran [Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal
No. 10571 of 2018, order dated 12-10-2018 (SC)] 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 [Commr. of Police v. Mehar

http://www.judis.nic.in
8/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 :
(2013) 2 SCC (LS) 910] , Parvez Khan [State of
M.P. v. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 : (2015) 1 SCC
(LS) 544] and Pradeep Kumar [UT, Chandigarh
Admn. v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 : (2018) 1
SCC (Cri) 504 : (2018) 1 SCC (LS) 149] .

16. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing
on record to suggest that the decision taken by the
authorities concerned 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 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 [Abhijit Singh
Pawar v. State of M.P., WP No. 9412 of 2013, order dated
31-7-2014 (MP)] as well as by the Division Bench [State
of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, 2015 SCC OnLine MP
7517] and dismiss Writ Petition No. 9412 of 2013
preferred by the respondent. No costs.”

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the

decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra and the

Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that employer is still

have a right to consider the antecedents of the candidates and competent

to take a decision with regard to the appointment of the candidate for the

post of Grade II Police Constable in the department. However, considering

http://www.judis.nic.in
9/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case

(supra), this Court is inclined to direct the Director General of Police to

consider afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. Therefore, this

Court is inclined to pass the following order:

(i) The impugned order, dated 3.10.2017 passed by the third

respondent is quashed.

(ii) The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai is directed

to consider afresh, the petitioner’s selection for appointment to the post of

Grade II Police Constable, in the light of aforesaid discussion and pass

orders in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No

costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

23.01.2020

Speaking / Non-Speaking order
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
vaan

http://www.judis.nic.in
10/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

To

1 The Chairman,Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road Egmore Chennai-8.

2 The Superintendent of Police
Cuddalore District Cuddalore.

http://www.judis.nic.in
11/12
W.P.No.33288 of 2017

D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.

vaan

W.P.No.33288 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.36720 of 2017

Dated: 23.01.2020

http://www.judis.nic.in
12/12

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation