Madras High Court
C.Vijayaraja vs The Director General Of Police on 26 March, 2013
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26/03/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P(MD)No.1145 of 2010 W.P(MD)Nos.5190 of 2010, 1525 of 2011 & 10539, 16858 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 2 of 2010, 1 of 2011, 1, 2 & 3 of 2012 C.Vijayaraja ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-8. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Selection Committee, No.802, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Palanichettai Patti Police Station, Theni District. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.1145 of 2010 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent by his proceeding Na.Ka.No.65875/Appointments 1(2)/2009, dated 05.01.2010, quash the same and direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner "C.Vijayaraja" bearing Registration No.2502460 as a Grade I Constable. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.P.s.Palanivel Rajaj ^For Respondents ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader **** A.Arul Amalanathan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai-4. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.5190 of 2010 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order made in Na.Ka.No.049742/appointment 1(2)2010-10, dated 06.04.2010 on the respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner to the post of Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2009. For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondents ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader **** D.Poun ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. 2.The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District. Theni. ... Respondents Prayer in W.P(MD)No.1525 of 2011 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records passed by the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.175200/Appointment 1(2)/2009-5, dated 08.12.2009 and the consequential impugned order passed by the second respondent in Ni.Mu.No.175200/Appointment 1(2)/2010-5, dated 02.08.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2007-2008 with all consequential, monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Thirumurthy For Respondents ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader *** S.Suresh Kumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director General of Police, Director General Office, Chennai-4. 2.The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board, No.807, PTP Chengalvarayan Nayakkar Mazhigai, Chennai-2. ... Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2012 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings, dated 04.08.2011 in Na.Ka.No.519/113807/Appointment 1(2)/2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as a Constable Grade II. For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Sathish Murugan for M/s.Hindu Associates For Respondents ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader **** M.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Department, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 3.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, rep. by its Chairman, 807, II Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.16858 of 2012 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned order of rejection passed by him, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.150905/Niyamanam 1(2)/2010, dated 24.08.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2006 within the time limit. For Petitioner ... Mr.M.V.Venkateseshan For Respondents ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen Additional Government Pleader ***** :COMMON ORDER
In all these cases, the petitioners successfully passed the written examination and also qualified in the physical test. Thereafter, they were informed that their applications were rejected on the ground that they suppressed their involvement in the criminal cases in their applications as well as in the verification roll and therefore, they were not selected for Grade II Police Constable and the same is challenged in these writ petitions.
2.The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that though in the Full Bench judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97, in the matter of Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and 4 others, the Hon'ble Full Bench held that as per Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service and the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either of his involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of material facts, irrespective of ultimate outcome of the criminal case, having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011(3) SCALE 606 : (2011)4 MLJ 1006(SC) in the matter of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011(6) CTC 440 (SC), in the matter of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P & others and in the judgment reported in (2012)7 MLJ 68(SC) in the matter of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr.Prinl. Section Home and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the issue, whether a person can be disqualified on the ground of suppression of particulars in the application form or in the verification roll in the matter of appointment to the Larger Bench, the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of our High Court reported in 2008(2) CTC 97, in the matter of Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and 4 others, should not be taken into consideration for rejecting the application and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Grade II Police Constable is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
3.The learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that though in many cases, the petitioners were involved having committed offences under Indian Penal Code, they were acquitted and latter, the acquittal was modified into honourable acquittal and therefore, once the petitioners were honourably acquitted of the charges, no stigma is attached to them and therefore, the suppression of those cases, either in the application form or in the verification roll should not be put against the petitioners in the light of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above.
4.Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that law has been finally laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97(supra) and the Hon'ble Full Bench, after considering all the earlier judgments, including the judgments reported in 1996(II)LLJ 703 (SC) in the matter of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & another, 2007(12) SCALE 539 in the matter of R.Radhakrishnan, vs. The Director General of Police and after considering the provisions of Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 held that even though, a person was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in a criminal case, he can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police force and the failure of that person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle the Appointing Authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of material facts, irrespective of ultimate outcome of the criminal case and therefore, even though the petitioners were honourably acquitted by this court, having regard to the suppression of involvement in the criminal case, the rejection of their application is valid as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court.
5.He further submitted that as per Explanation (2) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 even if a person was honourably acquitted or the case, in which he was involved was referred as 'Mistake of Fact', they were treated as 'not involved in a criminal case' and they can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim right of appointment in the present recruitment and they are entitled to participate in the next recruitment to be conducted by the respondents.
6.He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2011(6)CTC 440, in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others, interpreted the Government Order, dated 28.04.1958 on the subject 'Verification of the character and antecedents of Government Servants before their first appointment', wherein a duty was cast on the Appointing Authority to satisfy itself about the suitability of the candidate and having regard to that particular order, held that the Appointing Authority without considering, whether a person is suitable for the post, having regard to the involvement in the criminal case and without giving opportunity to the petitioners, rejected the application and therefore, set aside the order of rejection. He, therefore, submitted that the facts of that case reported in 2011(6) CTC 440 [Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Others] cannot be applied to the facts of the present cases and in these cases before this court, Rule 14(b)(iv) specifically says that a candidate should not be involved in a criminal case before police verification and as per clause 14(b)(ii), the character and antecedents of the persons should be such as to qualify him/them for police service and further in the verification roll, the petitioners were directed to give answer to column 15, 16 and 18 about their involvement in the criminal case or whether they were arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or to pay a fine in any criminal or other offences and whether any civil or criminal cases are pending against them and in respect of those questions, against all the petitioners have given the answer 'No' by falsely suppressing their involvement or the case filed against them for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and therefore, having regard to the suppression of those material particulars, they are not qualified to be appointed for that posts. He further submitted that in the judgment reported in 2011(3) SCALE 606, in matter of Commissioner of Police & others vs. Sandeep Kumar, cannot also be relied upon by the petitioners as the facts of that case are entirely different. In the case of Sandeep Kumar, the petitioner disclosed in the attestation form about his involvement, though he suppressed the same in the application form and considering the same and also the fact that Special Leave Petition was filed by the Commissioner of Police against the order of the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the High Court and therefore, the said case cannot be applied to the facts of the cases.
7.He further submitted that even though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the issue to a Larger Bench, that cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioners and till, a final verdict is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 and other judgments have to be taken into consideration to decide the issue and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right to the appointment and the rejection cannot be challenged as illegal.
8.The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that these persons participated in the selection that took place from the year 2007 to 2010 and they were rejected and the selection process was also over and therefore, at this length of time, these persons cannot be considered for appointment.
9.In the batch of cases, in W.P.(MD)No.474 of 2013 etc., I delivered judgment today, wherein in respect of cases, where the petitioners have suppressed their involvement in the criminal cases, either in the application form or during police verification and such persons, who were latter acquitted can be considered for appointments, considering the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the issue, whether a person can be denied a job for suppression of involvement in the criminal case in the application form or during the verification roll to the Larger Bench and set aside the orders of the respondents in rejecting the application on that ground. In these cases also, in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.16858 of 2012 in the order, dated 24.08.2010, it was stated that he was eligible to participate in the next recruitment. In W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2012, the case was compromised between the parties and the witnesses turned hostile and he was acquitted. In W.P(MD)No.1525 of 2011, the petitioner was acquitted, as the witnesses turned hostile. In W.P(MD)No.1145 of 2010, the petitioner's offence was compounded and he was acquitted. In W.P.(MD)No.5190 of 2010, the petitioner was acquitted and in all these cases, the petitioners were prosecuted for offences under sections, 294(b), 323, 354, 427, 341 and 506(ii) IPC and such offences could not be characterised as offences involving Moral Turpitude. Though, the petitioners participated in the selection for the year 2007 to 2010, immediately after their rejection, they approached this court by filing the writ petitions and therefore, their candidatures cannot be rejected on the ground that the selection for the year 2007 to 2010 was over.
10.As in similar cases, I allowed the writ petitions filed by the persons, who were acquitted in the criminal cases, the present petitioners are also entitled to have the same benefit. Therefore, following the judgment rendered in the batch of cases referred to above, these writ petitions are also allowed and the orders of the respondents in rejecting the applications of the petitioners are set aside and the petitioners' selection is subject to the final judgment to be rendered by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the reference made in the judgment reported in (2012)7 MLJ 68 (SC) in the matter of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr.Prinl. Section Home and Others and in the event of the Hon'ble Supreme court decides that suppression of involvement in the criminal case would dis-entitle the petitioners from getting a job in the police force, their appointment shall liable to be set aside at the discretion of the respondents. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
er To,
1.The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-8.
2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Selection Committee, No.802, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.