Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police vs K.Nambuboomurugan on 17 July, 2017
Bench: Nooty.Ramamohana Rao, S.S.Sundar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
REV.APLC (MD).No.111 of 2017
1.The Director General of Police,
Chennai-4.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Chennai-3.
3.The District Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Rameswaram Temple Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Applicants
-vs-
K.Nambuboomurugan ... Respondent
Application under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 114 of
C.P.C., against the order, dated 01.09.2016, passed in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015
in W.A.(MD) No.SR32506 of 2015 on the file of this Court.
!For applicants : Sri S.Chandrasekar,
Govt.Advocate.
^For respondent : Sri G.Prabhu Rajadurai
:ORDER
This Review Application is moved by the Director General of Police, Chennai; The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai; The District Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District; and The Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Temple Police Station, Ramanathapuram District, seeking a review of the order passed on 01.09.2016 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.A.(MD)No.SR32506 of 2015, by us.
2. When M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.A.(MD)No.SR32506 was taken up for consideration by us, we had not confined our order merely to examine the request for condonation of delay in moving the writ appeal, which was directed against the judgment rendered in W.P.MD.No.7325 of 2013, but we examined the matter on merits. We noticed that the original writ petitioner sought for recruitment as Police Constable, Grade-II, and, at the time of verification of his antecedents, the Home Department realised that the writ petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered as Crime No.6 of 2012 on the file of Ramanathapuram Temple Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294 (b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was based upon an incident, that took place on 20.01.2012. The writ petitioner was, in fact, arrested on 22.01.2012 by the police.
3. In paragraph 7 of our order, dated 01.09.2016, we went on to record that the writ petitioner was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, which initially released him on bail on 27.01.2012 and that the proceedings pending on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, were quashed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, on the ground that the accused was a juvenile, at the time of commission of offence. We had also noticed, that under Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000, the relevant records of conviction should be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or after the reasonable period expired. Therefore, the essential purpose intended to be achieved was to see that not even any traces of the juvenile's involvement and/or the criminal record should be left behind. We further noticed, that the writ petitioner was, therefore, obliged not to disclose the commission of offence, when he was a juvenile, while filling up the application form, for seeking employment as a Police Constable, years later on. Under those circumstances, we dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition, seeking condonation of delay, so also the Writ Appeal SR., as we found no merit in the main matter
4. It is only appropriate to notice, that the learned single Judge, by the order, dated 29.04.2013, had upheld the contention of the writ petitioner, that he was less than 18 years of age as on 20.01.2012, the date of commission of the alleged offences, registered in Crime No.6 of 2012 by the Ramanathapuram Temple Police Station. Following the judgment rendered earlier in a batch of cases on 26.03.2013, the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the adverse conduct of the juvenile cannot come in the way, making him suffer any disqualification at a later point of time. It was against the said order, the Writ Appeal SR was preferred, as noted supra.
5. In this Review Application, the learned Government Pleader has pointedly drawn our attention to the application form, submitted by the writ petitioner, in response to the notification, issued for recruitment of Police Constables, by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai. Column 8 of the application form relates to date of birth. The writ petitioner has noted his date of birth in the said column as 18.01.1993. He has also enclosed the necessary certificate, in proof of his date of birth, which is Secondary School Leaving Certificate. He has forwarded his application by registered post, enclosing the receipt of payment of fee, dated 17.04.2012. It is, therefore, contended, that by 20.01.2012, on the date of commission of offences, the writ petitioner had, in fact, completed 19 years of age, and, as such, as on the date of commission of offences, he would not be answering the definition of the expression ''juvenile''. Against Column No.29, relating to whether any criminal case is pending against him, the writ petitioner furnished the answer as ''No'', and, hence, it amounts to suppression of fact.
6. From a perusal of the First Information Report, based on which the Crime No.6 of 2012 was registered on 20.01.2012, it is seen, that the offence is alleged to have been committed only on 20.01.2012. Going by the Secondary School Leaving Certificate issued by the State Board of School Examinations, Tamil Nadu, the date of birth of the writ petitioner is reflected therein as 18.01.1993. Even in the Transfer Certificate issued by Rajah's Higher Secondary School, Ramanathapuram, his date of birth has been recorded as 18.01.1993 and he was shown to have been admitted to the said school on 02.06.2004 to VI Standard. Obviously, 02.06.2004 is the reopening day of the school. For securing admission to VI Standard, one is required to have completed ten years of age. Therefore, the date of birth of the writ petitioner, as recorded in the school record as 18.01.1993, may not be inaccurate.
7. We have examined the order, dated 21.12.2012, passed in Criminal O.P.No.MD.No.19739 of 2012, as well. The said Criminal O.P. was instituted by this very writ petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the F.I.R. in Crime No.6 of 2012. That O.P. was disposed of only on 21.12.2012. It is, thus, clear, that by 17.04.2012, the date on which the writ petitioner submitted his application for recruitment as Police Constable, Crime No.6 of 2012 was pending against him on the file of Temple Police Station, Ramanathapuram, and he was aware of the criminal case.
8. The learned Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court, that the final report against the writ petitioner was submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board, and it is yet to be taken note of by the said Board and, hence, quash proceedings were initiated by the writ petitioner. However, paragraph 5 of the brief order passed by this Court on 21.12.2012 in Criminal O.P.(MD)No.19739 of 2012 reads as under :
?5.The de-facto complainant is present before this Court and he seeks permission of this Court to compound the offence against the petitioner.?
Therefore, it is clear, that this Court had allowed the unnumbered petition, filed by the de facto complainant in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19739 of 2012, permitting him to compound the offence against the writ petitioner. Hence, the Criminal O.P. was allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.6 of 2012 were quashed. It is, thus, very clear, that this Court had quashed the criminal proceedings in Crime No.6 of 2012 against the petitioner, not for the reason that he was a juvenile, but because, the de facto complainant filed a petition, seeking leave of the Court to compound the offence against the writ petitioner. In fact, there is no declaration, that the writ petitioner was a juvenile. Hence, there was an error apparent on record of our order, dated 01.09.2016, warranting a review. Further, if the date of birth of the writ petitioner, as is reflected in the school record, is to be gone by, as on 20.01.2012, the writ petitioner, having completed 19 years of age by then, could not have answered the definition of ''juvenile'', as on that date. (emphasis is supplied by me)
9. Then, the question will boil down, as to, whether the writ petitioner was justified in withholding the information regarding his involvement in Crime No.6 of 2012, while submitting his application form, for recruitment to the post of Police Constable, by furnishing the answer as ''No'', against Column No.29 of the application form.
10. It is not very difficult for us to come to an appropriate conclusion in that regard, inasmuch as the Supreme Court, in the judgment rendered in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, and Another v. Mehar Singh, 2013 (7) SCC 685, has held that not offering appointment as Police Constables to candidates, who are involved in criminal cases, cannot be faulted, as the requirements of police service are peculiar, and persons with doubtful credentials cannot be recruited to the police service. Therefore, if the writ petitioner is not to be treated as a juvenile as on 20.01.2012, the action of the Police Department, in not offering him employment as Police Constable, all due to his involvement in Crime No.6 of 2012 on the file of Temple Police Station, Rameswaram, and also for suppressing and not disclosing the said information, cannot be faulted. As the writ petitioner has failed to disclose in his application form about the registration of criminal case, which was pending against him, his conduct clearly amounts to suppression of his past criminal conduct. The suppression attempted by the writ petitioner, hence, works against him and he cannot be offered employment for that very reason, as a Police Constable.
11. Realising this difficulty, Sri G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, would urge before us that the writ petitioner's actual date of birth is 21.03.1994 and it was also registered in the Births and Deaths Register, maintained by Mudukulathur Taluk Office of Ramanathapuram District. According to the learned counsel, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was recorded at Serial No.154 of the Register on 28.03.1994 as 21.03.1994 and that is the correct date of birth, and not 18.01.1993, as erroneously mentioned in the application form, submitted by the writ petitioner. He, accordingly, places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Santenu Mitra v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1999 SC 1587. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, it is observed as under :
?4. We are of the view that the High Court fell in error in not holding the appellant to be below 16 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence. It is nobody's case that the entry in the Register of Births and Deaths is not a genuine entry, even though it was recorded sometime between 14-8-1978 and 8-11-1978 pertaining to a date of birth of 19-11-1972. Once that entry was recorded by an official in performance of his duties, it cannot be doubted on the mere argument that it was not contemporaneous with the date of the suggested date of birth of the appellant. It cannot be forgotten that the occurrence took place much later, say 10 years. It could not have been expected on the date when the entry was made that the appellant would claim benefit thereof on the commission of some offence. That entry is not alone but added thereto is the LIC policy and the matriculation certificate likewise mentioning the date of birth of the appellant being 19- 11-1972. On the basis of such overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence, the application form filled in by the appellant's father suggesting his date of birth as 19-11-1971 pales into insignificance. We, therefore, have no hesitation to upset the impugned order of the High Court declaring the appellant to be a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The appeal is thus allowed. The trial be regulated accordingly.?
12. Unfortunately, in the instant case, the school record, i.e., the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, issued by the State Board of School Examinations, Tamil Nadu, recorded the date of birth of the writ petitioner as 18.01.1993. It is the same date, which the writ petitioner claimed in his application form, for recruitment as Police Constable. The said school record has never been altered, reflecting 21.03.1994, as the date of birth of the writ petitioner. So long as the school record remains intact and as it is, we cannot go by the birth certificate issued by any other authority, the additional reason being, between 18.01.1993 and 21.03.1994, there is a clear gap of 14 months, and the possibility of birth of another child to the parents of the writ petitioner during the said 14 months' duration could not have been ruled out. Further, for the purpose of making entries in service records of government servants, the date of birth, as reflected in Secondary School Leaving Certificate, alone plays a decisive role. So long as the said certificate remains intact and unaltered, the date reflected therein alone is to be taken into account and consideration, but not any other date, based upon an entry found in the Register of Births and Deaths, maintained by the Government. Further, the writ petitioner has not claimed in his application form that his date of birth is 21.03.1994; instead, he claimed it as 18.01.1993. (emphasis is supplied by me)
13. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that there was an error apparent on the face of the record of our order, dated 01.09.2016. The writ petitioner has not disclosed truthfully and faithfully about his involvement in the crime and registration of the same in Crime No.6 of 2012, when he submitted his application form on 17.04.2012, for recruitment to the post of Police Constable. It is further clear, that he moved Criminal O.P.(MD)No.19739 of 2012 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only after submission of his application form, for recruitment as Police Constable. That O.P. was pending till 21.12.2012. For the suppression of relevant piece of information attempted by the writ petitioner, going by the principle evolved in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, and Another v. Mehar Singh's case, cited supra, not offering employment to the writ petitioner as a Police Constable cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we are of the view that this Review Application deserves to be allowed.
14. As such, the order passed by us in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 in W.A.(MD)No.SR32506 of 2015 on 01.09.2016 is set aside. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 stands allowed and W.A.(MD)No.SR32506 of 2015, which is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, is also allowed. The Writ Petition moved by the writ petitioner stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected C.M.P.(MD) No.4515 of 2017 is closed.
.