Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21.W.A(MD).No.938 of 2020:

(a).The candidate namely K.Indhukumar was appointed to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in the year 2017. During the police verification, he was found to have been involved in a criminal case in Crime No.20 of 2016 on the file of the Mandapam Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b) and 323 I.P.C dated 28.02.2016. However, he was acquitted on 08.09.2017 on the ground that the witnesses have turned hostile. The notification for recruitment was issued on 23.01.2017. The police verification was done on 14.09.2017. The appointing authority had found that the candidate had suppressed about the involvement in the criminal case and it came to light https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.938 of 2020 etc., batch cases only during the police verification. Based on the said facts, his candidature was rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram. This order was challenged by the candidate in W.P(MD).No.14248 of 2018.

(d).Admittedly, the candidate has not disclosed about his involvement in the criminal case while submitting his application. However, he was honourably acquitted on 16.03.2020. The candidate had disclosed about the criminal case during the police verification on 10.02.2020. Therefore, it is clear that only after police verification, the candidate has been acquitted honourably.

(e).In view of the above said facts, we are of the opinion that the candidate would not be entitled to seek appointment as a matter of right in the current selection process. However, he would be eligible to be considered for appointment during the next selection process.

(d).The petitioner was involved in a criminal case on 04.06.2016 and he was acquitted on 24.08.2018 much prior to the notification for recruitment. It is not the case of the respondents that the candidate has suppressed the same either in the application form or during police verification. The candidate has been acquitted prior to the police verification on the ground of benefit of doubt and hostility of witnesses. Therefore, it is for the employer to consider the suitability of the candidate and the Court cannot issue any positive direction. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.938 of 2020 etc., batch cases

(c).The verification of the records indicate that the petitioner has suppressed about his involvement in the criminal case at the time of filing of his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)No.938 of 2020 etc., batch cases application on 30.09.2020. He had informed the authorities about his involvement in a criminal case only during police verification on 04.12.2021. The F.I.R as against the petitioner was quashed only on 27.01.2022 ie, after the date of police verification. Therefore, we are of the opinion that since the criminal case was pending as against the petitioner on the date of police verification, he would not be entitled to seek appointment in the current selection process.