Order On Reference R. Sudhakar, J.

1. These writ petitions are before this Larger Bench as per the orders of His Lordship the Hon'ble Chief Justice, dated 03.12.2013, on the Order of Reference, dated 07.11.2013, passed by Justice S.NAGAMUTHU. The two issues raised by the learned Referring Judge are as follows:

(i) Whether the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan vs. Chairman, T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board - 2008 (2) CTC 97 holds the field or it needs to be over-ruled?

(ii) Whether Rule 14(b)(iv) together with Explanations 1 and 2 attached thereto of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 is constitutionally valid?

2. Before we go to the issues at large, we notice that the constitutional validity of Rule 14(b)(iv) together with Explanations 1 and 2 of the Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 was questioned before a learned Single Judge of this Court and the said Rule was upheld as constitutionally valid in V.Veeramani vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2007 3 MLJ 676. That order was not challenged by way of appeal. It appears that despite upholding of the validity of the said Rule by the learned Single Judge, two Division Benches of this Court were of the view that in cases where the offence committed by the person concerned is petty one, it is not a bar to enter into Government Service, if he is otherwise eligible to hold the post and reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another -1996 (4) SCC 17. Those two decisions are in the case of (i) P.Virabhagu v. The Union of India - 2005 (1) CTC 429; and (ii) K.Ram Prasad v. State of Tamil Nadu -W.P.No.21671 of 2005 and W.A.No.1963 of 2005, decided on 06.12.2005. The above said view of the Division Benches was differed by another Division Bench in T.Sekar vs. Secretary to Government, reported in 2007 1 MLJ 510.

3. In view of the above, a learned Single Judge referred two issues to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for resolving the issues by a Full Bench. The issues which were raised for consideration by the Full Bench were:

"(a) the effect of an order of acquittal or discharge of a person involved in a Criminal Case with reference to Rule 14

(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, and

(b) the effect of non-disclosure of the same at the time of applying for appointment to the Police Service of the State."

4. When the matter was taken-up by the Full Bench, it was noticed that the constitutional validity of the Rule has already been upheld by a learned Single Judge. Therefore, a plea was made by the petitioners therein to amend the prayer to declare Rule as ultra-vires and permission was granted by the Full Bench for amendment. Accordingly, the Full Bench also had an occasion to consider the Constitutional Validity of the aforesaid Rule. In paragraph 40 of its Judgment, the Full Bench has held as follows:

"40. Therefore in conclusion, we hold that the amended Rule 14(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services is not ultra vires or unconstitutional. We also hold that the non-selection of the Writ petitioners or the rejection of their candidatures, by the respondents, either on the basis of their involvement in criminal case or on the basis of the suppression of their involvement, is perfectly valid and justified.

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 Tamil Nadu 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 Authori