High Court · 2025

WA NO. 2408 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-02-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. S. SUNDARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANANWA NO. 2408 of 2022M.Thirumal ChakravarthiS/o.Murugan, No.2/223, Adagapadi Village And Post, Dharmapuri Taluk and District. Appellant Vs1. The Member secretaryTamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.2. The Director General of PoliceTamilnadu, Chennai-04.3. The Superintendent of Police,Dharmapuri District, DharmapuriRespondents Prayer : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 25.03.2022 in W.P.No. 6948 of 2022 .For Appellant: Mr.T.Balachandran For M/s.A.Manoj KumarFor Respondent: M/s.R.Kumaravel, AGPJUDGMENT(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble S.S.Sundar J.)This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.N.o.6948 of 2022 dated 25.03.2022, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order cancelling the provisional appointment of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the fact that a criminal case was registered against him in Crime No.1079 of 2020. 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Bried facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows;2. The appellant/writ petitioner had applied for the recruitment for the post of Police Constable Grade II (Men and Women), Prison Warden and Firemen in the Fire Services and Rescue Services Department, 2020. The appellant attended written test, physical fitness test and interview and successfully completed all the tests and secured 53.0 marks out of 100 and he was provisionally selected to Tamilnadu Special Police as Police Constable Grade II. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent had passed order dated 06.01.2022, cancelling the petitioner's selection on the ground that the appellant had suppresed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 324 of IPC in Crime No.1079 of 2020 on the file of the Indur Police Station. The said cancellation order was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, based on materials, held that the writ petitioner had suppressed the registraion of criminal case against him at the time of applying for the recruitment and therefore he is not eligible for appointment as per Rule 14(b) (ii) and (iv) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services Rule 1978, (as amended in G.O.Ms.No. 101, Home (Police-9) Department, dated 30.01.2003) and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Aggreived by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was acquited 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis later and hence the order impugned in the writ petition is vitiated. The order in C.C.No. 84 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dharmapuri reveals that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and during hearing, the parties had reported compromise.4. This Court also examined the Rule 14(b) (ii) and (iv) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services Rule 1978, which specifically states that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification.5. This Court in several cases, based on the rules, held that supprression of pendency of a criminal case is more serious, particularly in the case of K.Ayyanar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai and 4 Others in W.A.(MD) No. 1053 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023, the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us is a party has elaborately considered by following precedents on this aspect. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder;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 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ''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. 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.''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.4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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, 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.''5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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:-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;j;jp 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 tptu';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/”6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.14. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”6. In view of the aforsaid decision of this Court, this Court finds no reason to inerefere with the dismissal order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. (S.S.SUNDAR J.) (C.SARAVANAN J.) 21-02-2025Index : YesInternet : YesNeutral Citation :YesakTo1. The Member secretaryTamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.2. The Director General of PoliceTamilnadu, Chennai-04.3. The Superintendent of Police,Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S. S. SUNDAR, J.andC. SARAVANAN, J.AkWA No. 2408 of 202221-02-20258