Madras High Court
A.Simon William Rajadurai vs /42 on 29 August, 2025
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 08.08.2025
Pronounced On : 29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
and
WMP (MD) Nos. 13444, 13445, 14789, 19398, 19399 of 2018
A.Simon William Rajadurai,
1/29, South Street,
Irudayakulam,
Vickramasingapuram,
Tirunelveli District - 627 425.
... Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.16737 of 2018
S.Ashok
S/o.Sekar
Behind Oid EB Office
Thirupachethi,Thirupuvanam Taluk
Sivagagai District. ... Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.21518 of 2018
S. Senthurpandi,
S/o. Shanmugam,
Keezhakanchirankulam,
Chithirankudi,
Mudhukulathur Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District.
... Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.14891 of 2018
Vs.
1/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep,, by it’s Principal Secretary,
Home (Police V) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 002. ... 1st Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
2.The Director General of Police,
O/o the Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai - 600 004. ... 2nd Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board,
No.4, 9th Cross Street,
Indira Nagar,
Chennai - 600 020. ... 3rd Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli District. ... 4th Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
5.The Superintendent of Police,
District Police Office,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli. ... 5th Respondent in WP(MD)No.16737/2018
6.The Superintendent of Police
Sivagangai District. ....1st Respondent in W.P.(MD) No.21518 of 2018
7.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Rep. by its Vice Chairman,
Having Office at
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008.
... 1st Respondent in W.P. (MD) No.14891 of 2018
2/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
8.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
.... 2nd Respondent in W.P. (MD) No.14891 of 2018
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.16737/2018.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus tor any other
appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in
his proceedings e.f.vz;.m2/16223/2017 dated 14.02.2018 and
impugned proceedings C.NO.A2/16223/2017 dated 12.06.2018 and
quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to
appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police with all other service
and attendant benefits within the period that may be stipulated by this
Hon'ble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'be Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.21518/2018.:
To issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ in the nature
of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka No.A3/9545/2017 dated
07.06.2018 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent
herein to appoint the petitioner as Grade-II Police Constable as per the
selection list with due seniority in the Common Recruitment of Gr-II
Police Constables, Gr.II Jail Wardens and Firemen-2017 within a
reasonable time and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus
render justice.
3/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
PRAYER in W.P(MD)No.14891/2018.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the Impugned Order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated
24.04.2018 vide his Proceedings in C.No. A3/29576/2017 and quash the
same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents No.l and 2
herein to appoint the Petitioner as a Armed Reserve Constable by
considering marks secured in the selection process conducted by the 1st
Respondent in response to his Advertisement No.ll7 for Common
Recruitment for the Post of Grade - II Police Constables (M&W), Grade -
II Jail Warders (M & W) and Firemen - 2017 and to pass such other
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Prayer in WMP(MD) No. 13444 of 2018:
To grant an order of interim stay of all further proceedings of the
Impugned Order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 24.04.2018 vide
his Proceedings in C.No.A3/29576/2017 pending disposal of the above
Writ Petition and thus render justice.
Prayer in WMP (MD) No. 13445 of 2018:
To grant an order of Interim injunction, directing the Respondent
to keep one Post of Grade – II Police Constable or Jail Warders Grade –
II or Firemen as Vacant, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and
thus render justice.
4/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
Prayer in WMP (MD) No. 14789 of 2018:
To grant an ad-interim direction directing the respondents to
appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police pending disposal of the
above writ petition and thus render justice.
Prayer in WMP (MD) No. 19398 of 2018:
To dispense with production of original of the impugned order of
the respondent in Na.Ka.No.A3/9545/2017 dated 07.06.2018 for the
present and thus render justice.
Prayer in WMP (MD) No. 19399 of 2018:
To stay the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.
No.A3/9545/2017 dated 07.06.2018 pending disposal of the above writ
petition and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrence, Advocate
in W.P.(MD) No. 14891/2018
: Mr. Pandi Dorai, Advocate
in W.P.(MD) No. 16737/2018
: Mr.U.Appadurai, Advocate
in W.P.(MD) No. 21518/2018
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
In all Writ Petitions
5/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Certain categories of litigation seem destined never to fade from the docket of this Court, even after being conclusively settled by a Larger Bench of five Judges. One such recurring controversy concerns the recruitment of police personnel, where the applicants are later found to have a criminal background, or, in their applications, either furnish false information or leave blank the column relating to antecedents.
3. As numerous judgments of Single Benches and Division Benches on this issue had, on many occasions, taken conflicting views, a Five-Judge Bench was constituted for an authoritative pronouncement. The Larger Bench, in J. Alex Ponseelan v. The Director General of Police, reported in 2014 (2) CTC 337, settled the matter once and for all. Justice A. Selvam authored the opinion forming the majority view of the Five-Judge Bench, which is recorded in paragraphs 81 to 84 as follows: 6/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 “81. A cursory look of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court would clearly go to show that police force is a disciplined force, wherein a person who is having atmost rectitude is eligible for recruitment. The person who has involved in criminal case is totally unfit for such recruitment.
82. Since the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehar Singh's case is similar to the object of Explanations 1 and 2 of Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, it is needless to say that the same should be held as intra vires.
Further in view of the discussion made earlier, the law laid down in Manikandan's case reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court, still holds field and the same need not be overruled as the Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed holding as follows:
"No ground is made out for our interference with the impugned judgment. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed accordingly."
83. It has become shunless to say that Clause IV of Rule 14(b) together with Explanations 1 and 2 have been introduced only for the purpose of recruiting persons who are having rectitude and not persons involved in criminal case(s). The Government of Tamil Nadu have introduced the same with atmost summum bonum for the purpose of maintaining a disciplined police force. Since Clause IV of Rule 14(b) and its Explanations 1 and 2 have been introduced with atmost good faith, nobody is entitled to have a furtive look upon it.
84. It has already been discussed elaborately and decided that the doubts raised by the learned Referring Judge for making the present Reference are not legally sustainable and further for the examples given by the learned Referring Judge, the decision rendered in Mehar Singh's case reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 685 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, stands as a befitting answer, and therefore, there is no merit in the Reference in question and answered the same accordingly and no other points have been raised on either side.” 7/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
4. Justice R. Sudhakar, who presided over the Bench, concurred with the opinion expressed by Justice A. Selvam and took the same view. His concurring opinion is recorded in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said judgment, which read as follows:
“21. I, therefore, answer the reference in the following:
(i) The decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan’s case, reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 is a good law.
(ii) Rule 14(b)(iv) together with Explanations 1 and 2 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules is intra vires of the Constitution, as has already been held by the Full bench in the Manikandan’s case and by the learned Single Judge in N.Veeramani’s case.
22. Before parting, I may observe that I have had the privilege of perusing the judgments proposed by my learned brothers Justice S.Tamilvanan and Justice A.Selvam and it had been my endevour not to repeat the reasonings of A.Selvam J. with whom I respectfully agree and, with utmost respect, I dissent from the views of S.Tamilvanan, J”
5. Since the Larger Bench affirmed the decision of the earlier Full Bench in Manikandan’s case (cited supra), it becomes necessary to refer to the reasoning adopted by the Full Bench on the issue of recruitment of police personnel with adverse antecedents. The Full Bench held as 8/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 follows:
“In answer to the reference made to the Full Bench, we hold-
(a) that by virtue of Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14 (b) of the Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 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 of the State and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified; and
(b) That the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency of a criminal case against him, would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case.
In view of the above, all the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs.”
6. Following the disposal of the matter by the Larger Bench, the Director General of Police issued a communication in Office Memorandum in R.C.No.1268/20889/Rect.II(1)/2015 dated 17.12.2015, wherein paragraphs 6 to 11 read as follows:
6. All the appointing authorities are requested to go through the relevant rules, court orders (Full Judgement available in High Court website), details of criminal case, role of the candidate in that case, present stage of case, judgement delivered etc, in a careful manner and issue necessary endorsement regarding rejection of their candidature under proper acknowledgement.
7. The following points should also be considered before issuance of the endorsement.9/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 a. Every case has to be judged on its merits.
b. “Honourable acquittal” restores the right of individual. Hence honourable acquittal before the date of police verification means that the candidate must be considered favourably.
c. A case referred on “Mistake of Fact” has to be favourably viewed for the candidate.
d. Discharge on technical grounds (hostile witnesses) does not entitle the candidate for automatic clearance and the appointing authorities may still reject the candidature on ground of unsuitability to do the nature of the duty.
e. Suppression of involvement in a case still under investigation or trial or not ending in honourable acquittal is a ground sufficient for rejection of the candidate.
f. Petty cases should not lead to over penalization.
8. It is also informed that the following types of candidates were considered for appointment to the post of SI of Police / Gr.II PCs on earlier occasions:
i)The candidates acquitted honourably prior to Police Verification
ii) The personal released under probation of offenders act were treated as not involved in a criminal case, in view of Section 12 of the PO Act 1958 which stipulates that convicts released on Probation of Conduct Act or after admonition by the Court shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction.
iii) The persons released under Juvenile Act were treated as not involved in a criminal case. Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 which stipulates that a Juvenile has committed an offence and has been dealt with under provision of this act shall not suffer disqualification, if any attached to conviction of an offence under such law.
iv) If any political affiliation on the candidate comes to notice during the Police verification, it will not be held against him, unless he is having other bad 10/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 antecedents. However, he shall be instructed not to involved in such activities as per conduct rules.
v) The candidates whose names are deleted from the charge sheet.
vi) The cases treated as Mistake of fact prior to police verification.
vii) Some of the candidates involved in petty cases were considered.
viii) Accident cases were considered if the case was pending at the time of police verification and if there was no suppression of fact.
ix) The case in which the I.O. registered the case against a minor candidates under IPC and not under Juvenile Justice Act, his case were considered for appointment.
x) The cases where fine was imposed up to Rs.2000/- were considered.
9. The date of Police Verification is the date on which the verifying Officer (ie. Not below the rank of SI of Police) is counter signing the verification Roll)
10. The persons who are acquitted under the benefit of doubt (or) hostility of complainant will be treated as involved in criminal case and he will not be considered for appointment as per Rule 14(b) of TNSPSS Rules (or) Rule 13 of TNPSS Rules.
11. Regarding “Honourable Acquittal”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil Appeal No. 4842/2013 in their orders, dated 02.07.2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 38886/2012) filed by the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another (Appellants) – versus- Mehar Singh have made observations in Para 21 of the said order and the same may be referred)”
7. Therefore, the Full Bench decision in Manikandan’s case (cited supra), the Larger Bench judgment in Alex Ponseelan (cited supra), and 11/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police pursuant to these decisions will alone govern the field. In the light of the above, the three writ petitions, which were heard together, are to be considered by this Court. As the facts in each of these cases differ, they are dealt with separately in accordance with their respective factual matrices.
8. Insofar as W.P.(MD) No. 16737 of 2018 (A. Simon William Rajadurai) is concerned, the petitioner has been engaged in several rounds of litigation. By order dated 29.04.2005, the Director General of Police informed him that his selection for the post of Sub-Inspector, pursuant to the recruitment for the year 1997-98, had been referred to the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for necessary action. Thereafter, his father, S. Anthony Michael, began addressing petitions to various authorities, including the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
9. However, the petitioner thereafter filed W.P. No. 1450 of 2006 seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board to recruit and appoint him in terms of the directions contained in the judgment dated 25.02.2005 in W.P. Nos. 17639 to 17660 of 2001. The matter came up before this Court and was heard by Justice R. 12/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 Sudhakar, who, by order dated 11.03.2010, disposed of the writ petition. In that order, the learned Judge observed as follows:
“5. In view of the nature of the relief sought for and the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that a direction can be issued to consider the various representations on merits and also taking into consideration the memorandum of the second respondent dated 23.9.2009. The second respondent is directed to consider the dispose of the representation dated 12.10.2005 made by the petitioner and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law on or before 29.04.2010. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”
10. However, as the respondents failed to comply with the said order, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 775 of 2011, which was disposed of by the same learned Judge by order dated 21.10.2011. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of that order, it was stated as follows:
“2. The direction of this court is to consider the representation dated 12.10.2005 and that has been considered by the proceedings dated 28.04.2010 passed by the respondent Director General of Police, by a detailed order. In such view of the matter, the respondent disobeying the order does not arise. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings dated 29.4.2010, if he desires to do so, in accordance with law.
3.Since the order of this Court has been complied with, the Contempt Petitioner is closed.”
11. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner filed yet another writ 13/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 petition, W.P. No. 12330 of 2012, before the Principal Bench, seeking to set aside the order dated 14.03.2012 issued by the Recruitment Board and praying for appointment. This writ petition was heard along with a batch of other petitions by this Court, and Justice M. Sathyanarayan, by order dated 27.01.2016, disposed of the entire batch. The learned Judge classified the cases into three categories:
• Category I: Matters remanded by the Division Bench for consideration based on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Senthil Kumar’s case.
• Category II: Cases filed before the Principal Bench on the strength of the orders of the Supreme Court in K.K. Senthil Kumar’s case. The petitioner’s writ petition fell under Category II(a) and was listed at Sl. No. 50.
• Category III: Fresh cases filed before the Principal Bench relying on the orders of the Supreme Court in K.K. Senthil Kumar’s case.
12. In the batch of cases, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner were recorded in paragraph 7 of the order. In paragraph 45, the learned Judge observed that the petitioners falling under Category III were all “fence-sitters” who had approached the Court only after the order was passed in Senthil Kumar’s case. Consequently, their cases were liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. While 14/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 dealing with Issue No. 4, the learned Judge, in paragraphs 42, 43, and 45, held as follows:
“42. In the light of the findings /answers given to Issue No.I to III, the petitioners in Category I and II, both in Principal Bench as well as Madurai Bench, are entitled to succeed. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.No.25146 /2014 is concerned, if records are available he has to undergo viva-voce test; otherwise the findings rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 5 and 6 of the decision in K.K.Senthil Kumar’s case would come into operation.
43. This Court has to deal with Category III cases where the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions during the years 2014 and 2015 respectively, after the above cited judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.K.Senthil Kumar’s case. It is to be noted at this juncture that the petitioners were fence sitters and waited on the side lines as to the result of the litigation and after becoming aware of the judgment in K.K.Senthil Kumar’s case referred to supra, has jumped into the fray by filing writ petitions during the years 2014 and 2015 respectively and pray for their appointment as Sub-
Inspectors of Police.
45. The petitioners in Category III cases has approached the Court only after the judgment in K.K.Senthil Kumar’s case and did not agitate their grievance for quite longtime. On account of such a lapse of time and belated approach, they are not entitled to get the relief of parity with petitioners with regard to Category I and II, though they are similarly placed. In the considered opinion of the Court, the claim of the petitioners are hit by delay and laches in the facts and circumstances of their case and hence, equitable jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised in their favour.” 15/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
13. Not being satisfied with the order of the learned Judge, the petitioner filed Review Petition No. 23 of 2016 in W.P. No. 12330 of 2012, seeking a review of the order insofar as it related to the grant of proper seniority among the in-service candidates. The learned Judge dismissed the review petition, observing as follows:
“The only grievance expressed by the petitioner is that though he is an in-service candidate, he has not been assigned with proper seniority and therefore came forward to file this Review Petition and sought for appropriate direction in this regard.
2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that despite of very many representations submitted in this regard, no proper response is forthcoming and though, this Court has passed a positive order dated 27.01.2016, the respondents are not implementing the same. On account of the pendency of the Writ Appeal and despite the fact no interim order are in operation, the respondents are yet to be comply with the orders. Therefore, prays for appropriate direction.
3. Per contra, Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent would submit that Writ Appeals are pending adjudication and listed for hearing before the concerned Hon'ble Bench during next week.
4. In the considered opinion of this court, this Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction, cannot entertain the request made by the petitioner as regards seniority which may be subject to the result of Writ Appeal. Hence, he is always at liberty to workout his remedy in accordance with law before the Competent Forum.16/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
5. Therefore the Review Application is dismissed subject to the above observation”
14. Subsequent to the above proceedings, the 4th respondent in WP(MD)No.16737 of 2018, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, upon noting that the petitioner had passed the Grade– II Police Constable examination in 2017, conducted an enquiry into his antecedents and character. By order dated 14.02.2018, it was held that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Sub-Inspector, as he was the second accused in a criminal case and the post required an unimpeachable and satisfactory past record. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation requesting reconsideration of the decision, which was rejected by the same officer by order dated 12.06.2018, reading as follows:
“2) In his representations dated 26.04.2018 and 25.05.2018 addressed to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, he has informed that the both FIRs in V.K.Puram PS Cr.Nos.44/11 and 45/11 are falsely narrated stories of the complainants. In this connection he has been dealt with in PR No.36/11 u/r 3(b) of TNPSS(D&A) Rules and he was imposed with the minor punishments. As he was found fit during the medical examination he has requested to issue appointment order for the post of SI of Police for the year 1997-98.
3) GrIPC 586, Simon William Rajadurai, Pappakudi PS, Tirunelveli district has involved in two 17/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 criminal cases in V.K.Puram PS Cr.No. 44/2011 u/s 147, 148, 341, 323,294(b), 342, 353, 506(ii) IPC and V.K.Puram PS Cr.No.45/2011 u/s 147,148,294(b), 353,323,332,506(ii) IPC. He is the accused (A2) in both cases. He has obtained anticipatory bail as per the High Court, Madurai Bench order dated 03.03.2011 in Crl.OP Nos. 2800/2011 (Cr.No.44/2011) and 2821/2011 (Cr.No. 45/2011). He has surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambai on 28.04.2018 and obtained condition bail for one week. Charge sheets in these cases were filed on 30.04.2018 before the Judicial magistrate, Ambasamudram in CC Nos. 124/18 and 125/18. These cases are posted to 26.06.2018 for accused appearance.
4) The extract of Rule-13 of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service is as follows:-
Rule 13.Qualifications:- No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority -
(a)that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service;
(b)that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service;
(c)that such person does not have more than one wife living; or if such person is a woman, that she is not married to any person who has a wife living; and
(d)that he does not have knock knees or bow legs or flat feet.
(e ) that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification:
4) As it revealed during the police verification that he has involved in criminal cases and that cases are still pending, Gr.I.PC 586, A.Simon William Rajadurai, is not a fit person to be issued with appointment order for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Hence, his request is rejected.” 18/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
15. In the present W.P.(MD) No. 16737 of 2018, the petitioner challenges the aforesaid two orders. He seeks their quashing and prays for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police with all service and attendant benefits. When the writ petition came up for admission on 30.07.2018, notice was accepted on behalf of the respondents. Since then, more than seven years have passed. In paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner, while referring to his earlier W.P. No. 12330 of 2012 and the review petition filed thereafter, also stated that he intended to file an appeal regarding seniority and other consequential benefits.
16. Though more than seven years have passed, the petitioner has not apprised this Court of the intended appeal or its outcome. This omission constitutes a serious lapse on the part of both the petitioner and his counsel, as they failed to keep the Court informed of other proceedings initiated by the petitioner. Upon verification, it was found that the petitioner had filed Writ Appeal No. 673 of 2019, which was dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated 05.03.2019. In that order, the Division Bench held as follows:
5. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.P.No.12330 of 2012 praying for the issuance of a Writ of 19/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings dated 14.3.2012 and consequently direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sub Inspector. This writ petition was tagged along with a batch of cases in W.P.No.26325 of 2015 and by a common order dated 27.1.2016, the relief sought for by the petitioner was granted, the writ petition was allowed and there was a direction to the respondents to give appointment to the appellant as the Sub-Inspector subject to being declared fit after usual medical examination and suitable after police verification as to his antecedents.
6. It appears that the said order dated 27.1.2016 has not been complied with till date on account of police verification with regard to the antecedents of the appellant. The appellant, not satisfied with the relief granted in the said order dated 27.1.2016 in WP.No. 12330 of 2012, filed a review petition before the learned Single Judge in R.P.No.23 of 2016. In the said review petition, apart from other points, the appellant contended that his seniority had to be fixed along with the candidates, who were appointed pursuant to 1997-98 selection. However, the said review petition was dismissed on 24.3.2017 noting that as against the common order dated 27.1.2016 in a batch of writ petitions, writ appeals are pending and that the seniority claim of the appellant would be subject to the outcome of the writ appeals.
7. It is submitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order dated 27.01.2016 passed in favour of the appellant has also been challenged by other candidates and that the appeals are pending.
8. In our considered view, the appellant can have no grievance against the order in W.P.No.12330 of 2012, which was allowed by order 27.1.2016. In fact, in that writ petition, the relief granted was only to appoint him as the Sub-Inspector. However, it was not fructified as there were certain doubts with regard to the appellant's criminal antecedents, which are in the process of verification. Hence, we are also of the 20/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 considered view that the appellant has not made out a case for interfering with the order in W.P.No.12330 of 2012. In fact, the writ appeal is misconceived since the present writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
10. It is needless to add that as observed by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 24.3.2017 in R.P.No.23 of 2016, the seniority issue is subject to outcome of the writ appeals and apart from that, it is a fresh cause of action and it is always open to the appellant to agitate before the appropriate forum provided the order dated 27.01.2016 passed in W.P.No. 12330 of 2012 is sustained and if he is selected and appointed after verification of his antecedents.”
17. From the Division Bench order referred to above, it is evident that the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld, and the petitioner’s case was to be considered subject to medical examination and police verification of his antecedents. It is also clear that the petitioner had been involved in two criminal cases—Crime No. 44 of 2011 and Crime No. 45 of 2011—wherein serious charges were levelled against him, and he was arrayed as the second accused in both matters. The petitioner thereafter filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17164 of 2018 seeking to quash the criminal case pending in C.C. No. 124 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. The petition was allowed on 26.09.2018, and the learned Judge, after examining the defacto 21/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 complainant in open court and recording his statement, quashed the criminal proceedings, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to Rojavanam Home for the Aged and Poor. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order, it was stated as follows:
“4.The defacto complainant was present before this Court. This Court personally enquired him regarding the incident. The defacto complainant informed this Court that there was a dispute between two parties and in the heat of the moment, the petitioners prevented the revenue officials from performing their duties. He thereafter, stated that now that the petitioners have realized their mistake and have tendered their apology, there is no requirement to continue with the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that many of the petitioners did not resist the revenue officials and they were only present in the scene of occurrence. Any how, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in order to give a quietous to the whole issue, each of the petitioner had given apology letter, expressing their regreat with regard to the incident that took place on 30.01.2011.”
18. The other criminal case was heard by a different learned Judge. The petitioner’s Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17275 of 2018 was likewise quashed, the Court following the earlier judgment and also taking into account the apology and undertaking furnished by the persons concerned. In paragraph 6 of the order dated 26.11.2018, it was stated as follows: 22/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 “6. In view of the earlier proceedings being quashed by this Court by order dated 26.09.2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.16316 and 17164 of 2018, this Court enquired the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and he would submit that there was an agitation in the village in the morning when the revenue officials have attempted to remove the encroachments and that the present case is registered in respect of subsequent incident. He would further submit that as on date, there is no problem in the village and the first accused and their men have also given a letter of undertaking not to create such problem and also have tendered their apology expressing their regret with regard to the incident took place on 30.01.2011. He would further submit that there is no objection if the proceedings being quashed by following the orders of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD). Nos.16316 and 17164 of 2018, dated 26.09.2018.”
19. Although the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court— through an additional typed set filed after the institution of the present writ petition—the subsequent quashing of the criminal proceedings by two learned Judges, he failed to disclose the following three cases instituted by him after filing this writ petition and prior to the hearing of the matter and reservation of orders. Those cases are as follows:
W.P.(MD) No. Date of Disposal
a. 15190 /2021 08.11.2023
b. 25477/2022 14.11.2024
c. 12741/2024 14.06.2024
23/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )
W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
20. These three writ petitions were directly connected to the petitioner’s service record, and certain relevant facts emerge from them. It is evident that the petitioner has, almost every year, been filing either a writ petition or a review application before this Court, thereby adding to the Court’s burden. The records reveal that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 10.02.2011 on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case. This suspension was revoked on 28.12.2011. Thereafter, a charge memo under Rule 3(b) was issued to him, culminating in the imposition of punishment in P.R. No. 36 of 2011 dated 01.03.2013. His subsequent appeal and revision petitions were also dismissed. The period of suspension from 01.01.2011 to 28.12.2011 was treated as eligible leave.
21. In the first writ petition, which was disposed of on 08.11.2023, the learned Judge passed the following order:
“4. The facts narrated above clearly indicate that the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings initiated as against the writ petitioner have culminated and therefore, there is no legal impediment for the authorities to consider the request of the writ petitioner for regularizing the suspension period.
5. In view of the above said facts, the fifth respondent herein is directed to consider the request of the petitioner 24/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 for regularization of service of the petitioner during the suspension period based upon the Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules as applicable and pass orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
22. Subsequently, the petitioner filed two more writ petitions—one in 2022 and another in 2024—both seeking the identical relief of regularising the suspension period. The 2024 writ petition was taken up for hearing first, and the petitioner did not disclose the pendency of the earlier writ petition so that both could be heard together. The 2024 writ petition was disposed of on 14.06.2024, with the Court holding as follows:
“7. As the petitioner has been given with the charge under Section 17 (b) and at the conclusion of the proceedings he was given with the minor penalty of postponement of one increment, the authority concerned can reconsider the request of the petitioner to consider his period of suspension as that of duty in the light of the earlier judgment rendered in Review Application (MD)No.139 of 2015 as well as in the light of the Fundamental Rules 54, 54A and 54B.
8. In view of the afore-stated reasons, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 5th respondent for fresh consideration. The 5th respondent shall consider and pass orders afresh within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 25/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
23. Therefore, when W.P.(MD) No. 25477 of 2022 was taken up for hearing, the matter having already been disposed of, the learned Judge passed the following order:
“3.Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP(MD).No.15190 of 2021, the third respondent herein has passed an order dated 04.04.2022, treating the suspension period as eligible leave period, instead of treating it as duty period. This order was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WP(MD)No.12741 of 2024 and this Court, by order dated 14.06.2024, disposed that writ petition, by remitting the matter for fresh consideration to the third respondent herein.
4.It is reported that the third respondent herein has now passed a fresh order on 18.09.2024, pursuant to the direction issued in WP(MD)No. 12741 of 2024, dated 14.06.2024. This order dated 18.09.2024 has also been served on the petitioner.”
24. As far as the matters before the Madurai Bench are concerned, including the present writ petition, the same counsel has been on record. It was incumbent upon him to inform this Court that the petitioner had obtained the aforesaid orders, which bear directly on his service record. The present writ petition arises from the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspector for the year 1997-98. Now, after the lapse of more than 27 years, the petitioner has been relentlessly pursuing this litigation without wavering in his resolve.
26/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
25. In view of the relevant service rule and the clarification issued by the Director General of Police, as extracted above, any subsequent order quashing the criminal proceedings will have no bearing on the petitioner’s earlier date of selection. Even the Division Bench judgment dated 05.06.2023 in W.A.(MD) No. 938 of 2020 and batch cases granted reliefs peculiar to those matters, which have no application to the present case. In the present writ petition, the 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 24.01.2019. In that affidavit, after referring to the previous proceedings and Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, it has been averred in paragraphs 9, 10, and 7 as follows:
“9.…he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for direct recruitment for the year 1997-98, under open competition in which the selection process conducted by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. After completion of the selection stages of physical, written and interview process, the uniformed services recruitment board did not consider the petitioners name for selection of Sub- Inspectors post provisionally for the year 1997-1998, since the petitioner had not obtained required cut off marks in the selection. In view of his non selection in the Sub-Inspectors recruitment, he preferred petition to the Director General of Police, Chennai with requisition to include his name in the selection list of Sub-Inspectors recruitment for the year 1997-1998. Thereafter his request had not been considered by the Director General of Police, Chennai. Subsequently, the petitioner alongwith the other persons who were also attended the Sub-Inspectors selection process during the year 1997-1998, but had not been provisionally selected for 27/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 the post, moved the Hon’ble Madras High Court through writ petitions with requisition to include their names in the selection list of Sub-Inspectors of Police for the year 1997-1998…” “….in W.P.Nos. 26325/2015 and batch cases in respect of the writ petitioners failing under cat-I and cat- II specified in the said order and appoint the 88 Writ Petitioners as Sub Inspector of Police, as of today, as a fresh entrant subject to their fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the said High Court order, such as securing more than final lowest cut-off marks, medically fit and clearance from the police verification etc. The Government also directed that these Writ Petitioners shall be placed below the directly recruited Sub Inspector of Police of the year 2015 as directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. In all these paragraphs, the petitioner has narrated about his appearance in selection process, marks obtained by him and mentioned about the various writ petitions filed before this Hon’ble Court. Since the petitioners prayer had been considered and orders issued by Hon’ble Court …..” “10……His suitability was asserted in proper perspective for issuing appointment order as Sub Inspector of Police. During the Police verification it was revealed that the Writ Petitioners has involved in 2 criminal cases in V.K.Puram PS Cr.No.44/2011 u/s 147,148, 341, 323, 294(b), 342, 353, 506(ii) IPC and 45/2011 u/s 147, 148, 294(b), 353, 323, 332, 506(ii) IPC. He is the accused (A2) in both cases. He has obtained anticipatory bail as per High Court Madurai Bench order dated 03.03.2011 in Crl.OP.Nos. 2800/2011 (Cr.No. 44/2011) and 2821/2011 (Cr.No.45/2011). He has surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram on 28.04.2018 and obtained condition bail for one week. Charge sheet in this cases were filed on 30.04.2018 before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram in CC No. 124/2018 and 125/2018. As per Rule 13(e ) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment, if he has 28/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 involved in any criminal case before Police verification. Hence the Writ petitioner was issued with endorsement in C.No.A2/16223/2017 dated 14.02.2018 and 12.06.2018 by the 4th respondent by rejecting his candidature for appointment as SI. His suitability for the post was thoroughly assessed before rejecting his candidature for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Hence the contention of the writ petitioner is not acceptable.” “7. During the Police verification it is revealed that the Writ Petitioner has involved in criminal cases that cases are still pending. Hence the Writ Petitioner was given endorsement in C.No.A2/16223/2017, dated 14.02.2018 and 12.06.2018 by the 4th respondent by rejecting his candidature for appointment as Sub-
Inspector of Police.”
26. At the time when the petitioner sought appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector, he was serving as a Police Constable and was involved in two criminal cases of a serious nature, the charges including obstruction of public servants in the discharge of their duties. The petitioner subsequently managed to have both cases quashed—by examining the Village Administrative Officer before this Court even prior to trial, and by furnishing an undertaking as to future conduct along with an apology. However, all these steps were taken after the filing of the present writ petition and do not, in any manner, advance his claim. The petitioner was also placed under suspension pending enquiry on a Rule 3(b) charge, though ultimately let off with a minor penalty, enabling 29/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 him to have the suspension regularised with pay. These circumstances, however, have no bearing on his entitlement to appointment as Sub- Inspector, which was rightly rejected on the ground of his involvement in criminal cases at the relevant time. Consequently, no relief can be granted to him based on the Full Bench decision in Manikandan’s case or the Larger Bench decision in Alex Ponseelan’s case, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
27. In W.P.(MD) No. 14891 of 2018, the petitioner, S. Senthurpandi, participated in the selection process for appointment as Grade–II Police Constable. After the completion of the selection process, an enquiry into his antecedents revealed that he had been involved in a criminal case, in which he was later acquitted on the benefit of doubt. However, while filling up the attestation form submitted to the authorities, the petitioner failed to disclose these facts truthfully. Consequently, by order dated 24.10.2017, he was informed that his claim stood rejected.
28. The petitioner challenged the said order in W.P.(MD) No. 30/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 20637 of 2017, which was disposed of by the learned Judge on 24.01.2018. In that order, there was no reference to either the Full Bench decision in Manikandan’s case (cited supra) or the Larger Bench decision in Alex Ponseelan’s case (cited supra). Instead, the learned Judge relied on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court — Joginder Singh and Avtar Singh—and, holding that the parameters laid down in Avtar Singh’s case had not been applied, issued the following directions:Avtar Singh’s case had not been followed, issued the following directions:
“4…….As already pointed out, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically observed that even if there is suppression in the case of a deserving candidate, it is even open to the employer to apply the reformative principle and condone the lapse. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order impugned in this writ petition will have to be set aside and the matter remitted to the file of the second respondent for fresh consideration.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed by quashing the order impugned in this writ petition and the matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent, who in turn, shall consider the case of the petitioner herein and take a decision afresh, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
29. Pursuant to the said directions, the Superintendent considered the matter and rejected the petitioner’s claim, holding as follows:31/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 “7. Moreover a batch writ petitions, which challenged the validity of Rule 14(b) of TN Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, were decided in Manikandan’s case reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 case as follows:-
“The non-selection of the writ petitioners of the rejection of their candidatures by the Respondents, either on the basis of their involvement in criminal cases on the basis of suppression of their involvement, is perfectly valid and justified..
That the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency of a criminal case against him, would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal trial.
8. While observing the questions of suppression of facts in various cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 21.07.2016 in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others in SCC 471-2006(8) has held in “Union of India and others Vs. Bipad Banjan Gayem (2018) 11 SCC 314” and “State of West Bengal and others Vs. S.K.Nazrul Islam (2011) 10 SCC 184” that the candidates could not claim for equity and were ajudged to be unsuitable for the appointment for the suppression of pending criminal cases while filing the applications.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in (Dhaya sankar Yadav Vs.Union of India and others 2010 (14) SCC 103 that “the candidate will have to answer the questions truthfully and fully and any misrepresentation or suppression or false statement therein, by itself would demonstrate a conduct or character unbefitting for a uniformed Police Force”
10. All the aspects in this regard were meticulously considered afresh with reference to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, direction of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P. 32/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 (MD) No. 20637 of 2017 dated 24.01.2018 and the guidelines issued in Rule 14(b) (ii) & (iv) of Tamil Nadu Special Subordinate Service Rules and it is ordered that Thiru.S.Senthur Pandi (Enrolment No. 2800907) is found unfit to be appointed as Gr II PC in the Force.”
30. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. When the matter came up on 11.07.2018, the learned Special Government Pleader took notice. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 14.10.2024. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, it was stated as follows:
“5……For subjecting him to Police verification of character and antecedents, he was summoned to the District police office, Ramanathapuram on 14.09.2017 and he was given Verification Roll Form containing 22 columns to be filled up and submitted by him. In reply to the questions in column No.15, 16 and 18 of the Verification Roll Form, he has mentioned that he was acquitted in Crime No. 87/2012 of Periyur Police station, Ramanathapuram District. This form which was filled up and submitted by him was sent to the concerned jurisdiction Police station to verify his character and antecedents. The concerned Station House Officer and the Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Ramanathapuram have reported that he was involved in Crime No.87/2012 of Peraiyur Police station, Ramanathapuram District u/s 294(b) 323, IPC r/w 5 of PPDL Act which is a serious crime and the petitioner was arrayed as A1 registered on 27.11.201 and the case ended in acquittal on 12.01.2017 on the ground of benefit of doubt in the court of Learned Additional District Judge, (Fast 33/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 Track court) Paramakudi vide CC No. 68/2015 U/s 235(1) Cr.PC. On verification of OMR application submitted by the Petitioner at the time of filing application in reply to the Question in column No.26 and 26(a) of the OMR Application Form, he has mentioned that no case is pending against him. As per rule 13(b) and (e) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service and that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification. As per explanation (1) of rule 13(e) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules a person who is acquitted on benefit of doubt due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case. The constitutional validity of the above said rule has been upheld by the full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 38289/2005 dated 28.02.2008.
6. It is submitted that the case of Crime No. 87/2012 of Peraiyur Police Station, he was acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt. Therefore, as per rules, he was treated as a person involved in a criminal case and he suppressed this fact of involvement in the criminal case. Hence he is not eligible for appointment to the service in the Police Department. Accordingly, he was served with an endorsement dated 24.10.2017 in C.No.A3/9645/2017 of the second respondent herein informing that he is not fit for appointment as Grade II Police Constable.”
31. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, and I see no reason to interfere with it. Incidentally, my 34/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 attention was drawn to an order of the Division Bench, of which I was a member, in W.A.(MD) No. 439 of 2020 dated 25.06.2025. In paragraph 7 of that judgment, we allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, observing as follows:
“7. Suppression of fact is a ground for rejection of candidature. The selection is to the post of Grade II Police Constable in Uniformed Services. Even if a candidate has not suppressed the fact regarding the registration of criminal case, still the Selection Committee is empowered to assess the antecedents of a person for selection to the post of Uniformed Services. It is a disciplined force and character and antecedents are of paramount importance. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again reiterated that selection to Uniformed Services are to be made by the Committee and the decision of the Committee becomes final since it involves verification of antecedents of a person. The Court cannot substitute the views of the Selection Committee in such matters, where the Committee formed an opinion that a particular candidate is not fit for Uniformed Services. Therefore, the reason stated by the Writ Court that there is no application of mind, seems to be incorrect. The file produced before this Court would show that the respondent has suppressed the fact regarding registration of a criminal case against him. Thus, the writ order dated 08.01.2019 passed in W.P.(MD).No.24995 of 2018 is infirm and consequently, the same is set aside.”
32. Hence, no case has been made out, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.35/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
33. In W.P.(MD) No. 21518 of 2018 (S. Ashok), the petitioner challenges the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.(MD) No. 23316 of 2017, which was disposed of by a learned Judge on 09.01.2018, directing the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s case afresh. Pursuant to that direction, the impugned order came to be passed. In paragraph 3 of the said order, it was stated as follows:
“3. Nkw;fz;l tpz;zg;gjhuh; jpU.S.mNrhf; vd;gth; kPjhd tprhuiz mwpf;ifapy; tpz;zg;gjhuh; kPJ jpUg;ghr;Nrj;jp fhty; epiya Fw;w fz;.98/2014 gphpT 387> 506(ii) IPC, gpufhuk; 27.04.2014 md;W tof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;L> khdhkJiu Fw;wtpay; ePjpj;Jiw eLth;
ePjpkd;wj;jpy; CC.No.433/14d;gb tof;F
eilngw;wJ. ,t;tof;fpy; jpU.S.mNrhf; vd;gth; A3
vjphp Mthh;. ,jpy; 06.06.2017 md;W jPh;gG
;
toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. mj;jPh;g;gpy; Fw;wthspfis F.tp.K.r. 248(1)-d;gb gb re;Njfj;jpd; gyd;fis vjphpfSf;F ey;fp vjphpfs; Fw;wthspfs; ,y;iy vd jPh;khdpj;J vjphpfs; tpLjiy nra;ag;gl;L jPh;gG ; mspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. tpz;zg;gjhuhy; tpz;zg;g gbtj;jpy; thpir vz;.26 kw;Wk; 26(a)-y; Fw;w tof;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;l tpguq;fs; midj;Jk; mtuhy; kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
NkYk; kDjhuuhy; G+h;j;jp nra;ag;gl;l rhpghh;g;G gbtj;jpy; thpir vz;.15 kw;Wk; 16-y; kDjhuh; Fw;w tof;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;l tpguq;fs; kw;Wk; cz;ikfs; ahTk; tpz;zg;gjhuuhy; kiwf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. NkYk; muR Miz vz;.101> (fhty;.9) Jiw. Ehs; 30.01.2003 kw;Wk; jkpo;ehL rpwg;G fhty; rhh;epiy gzpj; njhFjp tpjp vz;.14(b)(ii) & (iv)-d; gb ,uz;lhk; epiy fhtyh; gzp epakdj;jpw;F xUth; vt;tpj Fw;w tof;fpYk; rk;ke;jg;glhjtuhfTk;> mtuJ Ke;ija elj;ij 36/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 kw;Wk; Fzeyd; jpUg;jpfukhfTk; ,Uf;f Ntz;Lk;. NkYk; jkpo;ehL rpwg;Gf; fhty; rhh;epiy gzpj; njhFjp tpjp vz;.14(b)(iv)-d; fPohd tpsf;fk; 1d;gb Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lth; re;Njfj;jpd; gyid rhjfkhf ngw;Nwh my;yJ Gfhh;jhuh; gpwo;rhl;rpahf khwpajhNyh tpLtpf;fg;gl;lhy;> Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lth; Fw;w tof;fpy;
rk;ke;jg;gl;ltuhfNt fUj Ntz;Lk; vdf;
Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ.
vdNt> kDjhuh; jpU.S.mNrhf; vd;gtUila
Fzeyd;fs; kw;Wk; Ke;ija elj;ijfs; jpUg;jpfukhf ,y;iy vd;w fUj;jpd; mbg;gilapYk; kw;Wk; khz;GkpF cr;rePjpkd;w Mizfisf; fUj;jpy;
nfhz;Lk;> ghh;itfspy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s
Mizfspd;gbAk;> mtuJ ed;dlj;ij Fwpj;j
mwpf;ifapd; mbg;gilapYk; tpz;zg;gjhuuhd
jpU.S.mNrhf; j/ng.Nrfh; vd;gtUf;F fhty;Jiwapy; gzpepakdk; toq;f ,ayhJ vd;gJ ,jd; %yk;
njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
34. When the writ petition was taken up on 12.10.2018, notice was accepted by the learned Special Government Pleader. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the Superintendent of Police filed a counter affidavit dated 23.04.2019. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit, it was stated as follows:
“3. ...In connection with the verification of character and antecedents, he was summoned to the District Police Office, Sivagangai on 14.09.2017 and he was given a Verification roll form containing 22 columns to be filled up and return by him.
In reply to the questions in column Nos.15 and 16 of the Verification roll form, he had not mentioned that he was involved and acquitted in Crime No.98/2014, u/s 387 506(i) IPC of Thiruppachethi Police Station, 37/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 Sivagangal District and on verification of OMR application submitted by the petitioner, In reply to the questions In column No.26 and 26(a) of the OMR Application form, he had not mentioned about the criminal case against him. The same had been sent to ne concerned jurisdiction Police station to n6, hie character and antecedents. The Concerned Station House Officer and the Insoector of Police, Special Branch, Sivagangai District had reported that he had been involved in Crime No.98/2014 u/s 387, 506(i) IPC of Thiruppachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District on 27.04.2014. n this case, S.Ashok/ the petitioner is Accused No. 3. The final report in this case was filed and taken on file in C.C.No. 433/2014 in the Additional District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai and the case was ended in acquittal on 06.06.2017 on the grounds of benefit of doubt in the Additional District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai vide C.C.No.433/2014 u/s 248(1) Cr.Pc. It is respectfully submitted that as per rule 14(b) (i) and (iv) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Services, that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority "that his character and antecedents are such as to be qualify him for such service and that he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification". It is respectfully further submitted that as per explanation (1) to rule 14 of the said service, that a person who is acquitted or discharged on the benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.
4. It is submitted that the constitutional validity of the above rules had been upheld by the full bench of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in W.P.No.38289/2005, dated 28.02.2008 filed by Manikandan and others Vs The Chairman, TNUSRB. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the above orders had been dismissed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) No. 4679- 4681/2009, dated:- 23.03.2012. Therefore, as per 38/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 rules, S.Ashok / the petitioner was treated as a person involved in a criminal case.
It is further respectfully submitted that, on verification of OMR application submitted by the petitioner, in reply to the questions In column No.26 and 26(a) of the OMR Application form, he had not mentioned about the criminal case against him. It is also amount suppression of fact. Hence, he is not eligible for appointment to the service. Accordingly, he was served with an endorsement dated 25.10.2017 In C.No.A3/9545/2017 of the respondent herein informing that he is not appointed as Grade.II Police constable for having involved in criminal case as Accused No.3 in Crime No.98/2014, u/s 387, 506(ii) IPC of Thiruppachethi Police Station, Sivagangai District and the case was ended in acquittal on the arounds of benefit of doubt and he also suppressed the fact who involved in Thiruppachethi P.S Cr.No.98/2014 u/s 387, 506(ii) IPC.”
35. This case also squarely falls within the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Manikandan’s case (cited supra), as affirmed by the Larger Bench in Alex Ponseelan’s case (cited supra). Hence, no case has been made out, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
36. In view of the foregoing, all three writ petitions—W.P.(MD) No. 16737 of 2018, W.P.(MD) No. 14891 of 2018, and W.P.(MD) No. 21518 of 2018—stand dismissed. All connected W.M.Ps. are closed. 39/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
37. While no order as to costs is made in W.P.(MD) No. 14891 of 2018 (S. Senthurpandi) and W.P.(MD) No. 21518 of 2018 (S. Ashok), in W.P.(MD) No. 16737 of 2018 (A. Simon William Rajadurai), costs of Rs. 5,000/- are imposed, payable to the Tamil Nadu Police Benevolent Fund within four weeks. This order of costs is made solely on account of the petitioner’s failure to disclose several other cases filed by him relating to his service matter, which were necessary for the Court to arrive at a proper decision.
29.08.2025 Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes / No LS Copy to:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep,, by it’s Principal Secretary, Home (Police V) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Director General of Police, O/o the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai - 600 004.40/42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018
3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.4, 9th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Chennai - 600 020.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.
6.The Superintendent of Police Sivagangai District.
7.The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Having Office at Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
8.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
41/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm ) W.P.(MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS Pre-delivery Judgments made in W.P. (MD) Nos.16737, 21518 & 14891 of 2018 29.08.2025 42/42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:49 pm )