Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.66 seconds)
P.Baskaran vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 13 August, 2021 cites

C.Surendhar vs The Director General Of Police on 13 November, 2019

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it cannot be said that the petitioner involved in any criminal case inasmuch as the petitioner was not informed about the pendency of the criminal http://www.judis.nic.in 6/16 W.P.No.17239 of 2020 case in Crime No.303 of 2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was aware that a criminal case in Crime No.303 of 2013 was filed before the jurisdictional police station, he was not aware that the aforesaid proceedings had been taken with any seriousness either by the State as the prosecutors or by the defacto complainant himself. Since he did not receive any notice from the criminal code nor a summon was served on him, he participated in the examination and therefore there was no suppression by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this issue has also been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 13.11.2019 in the case of C.Surendhar Vs The Director General of Police & others in W.A.No.3877 of 2019. In this Connection, a reference was made to Paragraph Nos.34 & 35 of the said order reads as under:-
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

M. Manohar Reddy & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 February, 2013

Involvement without knowledge is also a factor that can eclipse any disadvantage or prospective impediment in http://www.judis.nic.in 7/16 W.P.No.17239 of 2020 certain circumstances, as explained by the Apex Court in the case of M.Manohar Reddy and another v. Union of India and others, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 99. Whether the fact or information unknowingly withheld is at all a material fact, is a matter of assessment on the peculiarity of the material and it's impact to be judiciously and objectively assessed by the employer without any prejudice or preconceived notions to rule out any possibility of malice or pure subjectivity in the decision making process. It is here that a play in the joints has to be given to the employer and unless such a latitude is given, it will be injuncting the authority from exercising its discretion to engage a person suitable for the post. We, therefore, find that an assessment has to be made by the Appointing Authority as to whether the involvement of a candidate in a criminal case would ultimately lead to the conclusion that his engagement would be detrimental for the nature of the employment for which he is being engaged. This may involve a bit of subjectivity, but the material on record has to receive an objective consideration. The question as to whether a person was involved in a case of violating a mere traffic rule or was involved in a heinous offence would obviously weigh with the employer to assess as to whether his engagement would otherwise be sustainable or be detrimental for http://www.judis.nic.in 8/16 W.P.No.17239 of 2020 recruitment in a Uniformed Police Force or not. We, therefore, leave that open to the authority concerned for an independent assessment. But, on the facts of the present case, we find that the authority has simply rested its decision on the finding that the appellant did not deserve to be engaged on account of not having been honourably acquitted. Whether the fact of his involvement was such that this inference could be justified does not appear to have been discussed in the impugned order. To this extent, we accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 73 - A Alam - Full Document
1   2 Next