K. Ayyanar, v. The State of Tamil Nadu,

J U D G M E N T [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.

¶2Brief 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 there was no criminal case registered against him was pending at the time of submitting application and police verification.

¶3Learned 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.

¶4The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court dated 05.06.2023 passed in a batch of writ 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, 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 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.''

¶5Per 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.

¶6The 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;> m.rh.1 kUj;Jtkidapy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;l gpd;gj[ hd; kUj;Jtkidapy; g[fhh; thf;FK:yk; mspj;Js;shh;. gf[ hh; thfF; Kyj;jpy; vjphpfspd; bgah;fisf; Fwpg;gpl;L g[fhh; mspj;jpUe;j nghjpYk;> kUj;Jtkidapy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;lnghJ rk;gtkhdJ xapd;\hg;gpy; elej; jhfnth> jd;id ahh; jhf;fpdhhf; s; vd;gJ Fwpjn; jh> jdf;F fhaq;fs; vt;thW Vw;gl;lJ vd;gJ Fwpjn; jh vJtk[ ; Twtpy;iy. ,tt; Hf;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;tHff; pd; vjphpfspd; bgahf; s;jhdh vd;gjid m.rh.7-d; K:ykhf kl;Lnk m.rh.1 mwpe;Js;shh;. ,t;tHf;fpd; g[fhh; thf;FK:yjj; pd;go rk;gtkhdJ m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2 kJf; filapy; kJ mUe;jpf;bfhz;oUe;jnghJ Vw;gl;l jfuhwpdn; ghJ fhaq;fs; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ vdg; J bjhpa tUfpwJ. m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2 gpw;gfy; 2.00 kzpapypUe;J 3.00 kzptiu kJ mUe;jpf;bfhz;oUej; jhf m.rh.1 xg;g[fb; fhz;Ls;shh;. m.rh.18 kUj;JtkidfF; miHj;Jr;brd;wtUk; kJf;filapy; ,Uej; tUk;> m.rh.1-d; cwtpdUkhd m.rh.4 muR jug;g[ tHff; pidr; rhh;e;J rhl;rpak; mspf;fhky; gpwH; rhl;rpahfg; ghtpf;fg;gl;L muR jug;gpy; FWfF; tprhuiz bra;ag;gl;Ls;shh;. vdnt vjphpfs; jug;g[ thjj;jpd;go kJ mUe;jpapUej; m.rh. 1 kw;Wk; 2-fF; jfuhwpd;nghJ fhaq;fs; Vw;gl tha;g;g[s;sJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ. vdnt rk;gtjj; pwF; Kd;g[ vjphpfisg; ghh;f;fhj m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2 rk;gtjj; pw;Fg; gpwF Kjy; Kiwahf ePjpkd;wjj; py; rhl;rpak; mspf;Fk;nghJ mth;fs;jhd; m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2-f;F fhaj;ij tpistpjj; hh;fs; vd;W rhl;rpak; mspj;jpUg;gJ ,aw;ifahft[k;> KGikahftk[ ; ek;gj; jFe;jjhf mikatpy;iy vd;Wk;> vdnt re;njfjj; pd; gyid vjphpfSfF; ey;FtJ ePjpapd;ghy; cfej; J vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; Kot[ bra;fpwJ. vdnt> ,t;tHf;fpd; m.rh.1 kw;Wk; 2-f;F ,t;tHff; pd; vjphpfs;jhd; fhaji; j tpistpj;jhh;fs; vdW; jPh;khdpf;f KoahJ vd Kot[ bra;J ,g;gpur;ridf;F tpilaspf;fg;gLfpwJ.''

¶7It 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.

¶8From 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.

¶9The 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.''

¶10In 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.......

¶34No 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.

¶35Suppression 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.''

¶11In 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.''

¶12From 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:- ''5. nkYk;> jkpH;ehL rpwg;g[f; fhty; rhh;epiy gzpj;bjhFjp tpjp vz;. 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.

¶6vdnt> 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.''

¶13From 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.

¶14The 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

bala To

¶1The Principal Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶2The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶3The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶4The Director General of Police, O/o. the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 004.

¶5The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

S.S.SUNDAR , J. and

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. bala g DATED : 27.07.2023

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 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. 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