Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1108
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. CHANDRU, J.
K. Sathyaseelan
Versus
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, rep by its Member Secretary & Another
W.P. No. 2068 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided on: 26-02-2013
For the Petitioner:Balan Haridas, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Subbiah, Spl.G.P.
Non-disclosure of a criminal case, especially when acquitted, may not warrant denial of employment. A lenient view should be taken towards minor indiscretions by young individuals, and caution should be exercised against false complaints under Section 498-A IPC.
Headnote:
False Information - Employment Denial - Rule 14(b) - Section 498-A IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Cr.P.C. 248(1) - The court discussed the petitioner's denial of employment based on false information provided in the Verification Roll, the relevant provisions of Rule 14(b) and its explanations, and the interpretation of the same in light of the petitioner's acquittal in a criminal case. The court also referenced judgments from the Supreme Court regarding non-disclosure of arrest and involvement in criminal cases, emphasizing the need for a lenient view towards minor indiscretions by young individuals and cautioning against false complaints under Section 498-A IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was denied appointment as Grade-II Police Constable for providing false information in the Verification Roll regarding a criminal case in which he was acquitted. The petitioner argued that the case was based on a false complaint by his wife and that they were living amicably, but the authorities denied his appointment based on the false information provided.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's non-disclosure of the criminal case in the Verification Roll did not warrant denial of employment, especially considering his acquittal and the circumstances of the case. The court also emphasized the need for a lenient view towards minor indiscretions by young individuals and cautioned against false complaints under Section 498-A IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's non-disclosure of the criminal case in the Verification Roll, the denial of employment based on false information, and the interpretation of Rule 14(b) and its explanations in light of the petitioner's acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere suppression of information by itself would not result in the petitioner being denied employment, especially considering his acquittal and the circumstances of the case. The court also emphasized the need for a lenient view towards minor indiscretions by young individuals and cautioned against false complaints under Section 498-A IPC.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order denying the petitioner's appointment and directed the respondents to grant him an appointment as Grade II Police Constable within three weeks.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order passed by the second respondent Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, dated 08.01.2013, wherein and by which the petitioner was denied appointment for the post of Grade-II Police Constable. This was on the ground that at the time of filling up the Verification Roll, the petitioner gave false answers with a view to divert the attention of the authorities in finding out the truth.
2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable, for which recruitment was done by the first respondent. He came out successful in the written test and other tests relating to Physical Efficiency test and medical test. Thereafter, when the antecedent and character was sought to be verified, a Verification Roll was given to him. The petitioner in his own handwriting filled up the verification roll. As against column Nos.15, 16 and 18, the petitioner gave the following answers which reads as follows :
"TAMIL”
3. It was thereafter, they have verified the details given by the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.12/ 2010 registered by the All Women Police Station, Harur for the offence under Section498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Inspector of Police, Morappur Police Station, Harur Sub division sent a report stating that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Section 498A IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After trial was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate, Harur, on 20.1.2011, the petitioner was acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. A copy of the judgment is also forwarded. It is under these circumstances, since the petitioner had suppressed the said information, as per Explanation-1 to Rule 14(b), the petitioner was denied appointment. It is necessary to reproduce the rule 14(b) in its entirety, which reads as follows :
"14(b). No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the Appointing Authority,-
(i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service; and
(ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; and
(iii) that such a person does not have more than one wife living;
(iv) That he has not involved in any criminal case before police verification.
Explanation (1): A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant "turned hostile" shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case.
Explanation (2): A person involved in a criminal case at the time of Police Verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment."
4. The contention raised by the petitioner was that a criminal case was given by none other than his wife. When she was examined as P.W.1, she denied the contents of the complaint as well as the signature marked in Ex.P.1, dated 13.4.2010. She also stated that she was not harassed by her husband, i.e., the petitioner and he never demanded any dowry. The petitioner's wife by name Rajalakshmi was treated as hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, P.W.2 to P.W.7 have also turned hostile and no cross examination was done by the prosecution. The trial court held that after examination of the wife, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner, it was found that the husband and wife were living amicably and they never wanted to pursue the case. It is under these circumstances, the acquittal was made.
5. The contention of the petitioner was that he was married to his wife Rajalakshmi on 11.4.2008. Based on domestic quarrel, she gave a complaint against him as if he had demanded do
