Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3438
High Court of Judicature at Madras
B. RAJENDRAN, J.
M. Sarathkumar
Versus
The Member Secretary & Others
W.P. No. 17567 of 2013 & M.P. No. 2 of 2013, M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided on: 23-09-2014
For the Petitioner:N. Suresh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: K.V. Dhanapalan, Additional Government Pleader.
Suppression of material information, especially involvement in a criminal case, can justify the denial of appointment, as per relevant rules and legal precedents.
Headnote:
Suppression of Criminal Case - Police Constable Recruitment - Tamil Nadu Gambling Act, Rule 13(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules - The court held that the petitioner's suppression of his involvement in a criminal case justified the denial of his appointment as a police constable, citing relevant rules and legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Police Constable, Grade-II, was rejected for suppression of his involvement in a criminal case despite being provisionally selected. The petitioner argued that the minor offence should not disqualify him, citing legal precedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's suppression of the criminal case, despite being asked to disclose it, justified the denial of his appointment as a police constable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's suppression of his involvement in a criminal case justified the denial of his appointment as a police constable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 13(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules and Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, as well as legal precedents, to support the decision to deny the petitioner's appointment due to the suppression of his criminal case involvement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court justified the denial of the petitioner's appointment for suppressing his involvement in the criminal case.
1. The petitioner is an aspirant for selection and appointment to the post of Police Constable, Grade-II with the first respondent Board. The petitioner has come out successfully in the written examination conducted by the respondents and he was also provisionally selected for medical examination for being recruited in the Armed Reserve Police in Tamil Nadu. On 21.08.2012, the petitioner attended the certificate verification, physical measurement test etc., and all the testimonials produced by him have been verified. While the petitioner was anticipating to get selected to the post of Police Constable Grade-II, the second respondent, by the impugned order dated 22.12.2012, rejected his candidature on the ground that he had suppressed his involvement in a criminal case at the time of applying for the post.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature is bad and it is not legally sustainable. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had inadvertently omitted to mention about the petty case in which he involved and paid a fine of Rs.200/- before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram and the respondents ought not to have relied on the same to reject his candidature. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar) reported in (2011) 4 MLJ 1006 wherein it was held that the minor indiscretions committed by the youth should be condoned instead of branding them as criminals for the rest of their life by depriving them employment opportunity.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case in which the petitioner involved himself is one under Gambling Act. The case in Crime No. 277 of 2011 was filed under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Gambling Act and it ended in payment of fine by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram in S.T.C. No. 2669 of 2011. Therefore, such a minor offence committed by the petitioner need not be put against him to deny him employment opportunity. The petitioner did not deliberately suppress the information sought for by the respondent and the omission to indicate the criminal case is only an inadvertence. Merely because the petitioner suppressed the criminal case, that by itself should not be taken by the respondents to deny him employment opportunity.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the division bench of this Court in the case of (P. Virabhagu vs. The Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Services, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi and others) reported in 2005 1 CTC 429 wherein the Division Bench of this Court following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another 1996 4 SCC 17 held that since the offence committed by the petitioner is a petty one, it cannot stand in the way of getting a job, which would decide the fate of the individual, while the petitioner is otherwise eligible to the said post and got selected.
5. The respondents have filed M.P No. 1 of 2014 in WP No. 17567 of 2013 praying to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 01.07.2013. Relying on the affidavit filed in support of the vacate stay petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that when the petitioner, knowing fully well about his involvement in the criminal case, had suppressed it when sought to be disclosed specifically, he cannot expect the respondents to select him for the post. In this context, the learned Additional Government Pleader would rely upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of (Manikandan and others vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and 2 others) reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 wherein it was held that employer can pre
