Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: suppression of material in V.Dineshkumar vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 31 July, 2023Matching Fragments
malai
Kaviyarasan A. Gr.II PC Suppression of Superintendent 060122
[W.P.No.4331 of 2022] material of Police,
information Dharmapuri
relating to
involvement in a
criminal case
Kokila P. Gr.II PC Suppression of Superintendent 17.02.2022
[W.P.No.23718 of 2022] material of Police,
information Salem
relating to
involvement in a
criminal case
Kumaran M. Gr.II PC Suppression of Superintendent 30.08.2022
[W.P.No.27526 of 2022] material of Police,
information Villupuram
relating to
involvement in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14 of 56
W.P.No.5376 of 2022, etc., batch
Name of the candidate Post for Reason for Authority Date of
and which rejection of who passed impugned
applicati appointment the order order
Writ Petition Number on was
made
criminal case
Kalyanasundaram S. Sub- Suppression of Deputy 30.11.2022
[W.P.No.34079 of 2022 Inspector material Inspector
of Police information General of
relating to Police, Salem
involvement in a Range
criminal case
Dilip Kumar C. Sub- Involvement in a Deputy 15.02.2023
21 of 56 W.P.No.5376 of 2022, etc., batch the act of the petitioner in suppressing the material information as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted in itself would amount to moral turpitude.
W.P.No.27526 of 2022:
4.6 (a) Kumaran M., the petitioner applied to the post of Grade-II Police Constable in 2019. He participated in the selection process and came out successfully in every stage of selection process. He was denied appointment on the only ground that he had suppressed the material information relating to his involvement in a criminal case. On a complaint from the victim-Manikandan, a case was registered in Crime No.293 of 2018 on the file of Mayilam Police Station for the alleged offences u/s 294(b), 323, 324 & 506(ii) of IPC against the petitioner and 2 others. The petitioner was arrayed as A2 in the said case.
9. The learned Additional Advocate General would on the other hand contend that the petitioners were denied appointments to the posts of either Sub-Inspector of Police or Grade-II Police Constable, as the case may be, on the ground that they had, except in three cases, suppressed the material information relating to their involvement in the criminal cases and in all the cases though they got clean chit either from the court or from the investigating agency, mere acquittal would not entitle a candidate to seek for appointment that too in the disciplined services. The orders of acquittal were merely on the ground that the witnesses therein had turned hostile and not honourable acquittal on merits. The act of suppressing the material information as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted in itself would amount to moral turpitude.
17.4. The petitioner contended that he was not aware of the pendency of the case and as such he did not disclose the same in the application. The respondents were not able to produce any material to show that the petitioner had knowledge of the criminal case registered against him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the material information.
17.5. Even assuming that he had knowledge, mere non-disclosure of the particulars of the case which was pending against the petitioner and closed as mistake of facts, in the considered opinion of this court will not have any serious impact as the offences alleged were trivial in nature and the same, in fact, did not involve any moral turpitude. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case involving moral turpitude. The involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case would no way affect his fitness for employment. Therefore, this court is of the view that the impugned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40 of 56 W.P.No.5376 of 2022, etc., batch order which has been passed mechanically requires interference at the hands of this court. This writ petition succeeds.