JUDGMENT :

S. Vaidyanathan, J.

(Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 16.12.2020 made in W.P.No.7229 of 2020 and allow the Appeal and thus render justice.)

1. Instant Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2020 made in W.P.No.7229 of 2020.

2. Mr.Sajeev Kumar, learned Government Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the Respondent failed to disclose his involvement in a criminal case, as required under Rules 13 & 14 of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order impugned in the Writ Petition. When a person is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt on the ground of witnesses turning hostile, the candidature will have to be rejected.

2.1. Learned Government Counsel further submitted that admittedly, there was a criminal case pending against the Writ Petitioner/Respondent herein and therefore, the Authority was right in rejecting the candidature of the Writ Petition. The learned Government Counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, reported in 2018 (18) SCC 733 and contended that in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the candidature was rightly rejected.

2.2. Learned Government Counsel also submitted that disclosure about the criminal case has not been duly made in the application and his involvement has been subsequently found out through Tamil Nadu Police Verification Roll in Column No.16. The act of the Respondent in not disclosing in the application is fatal to his case. When there is a suppression in the application, rejection on that score is correct and the candidature has been rightly rejected for non disclosure.

3. Per contra, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent herein submitted that a case was registered as early as in the year 2015 for offences under Sections 294 (b), 352 and 506(i) of IPC, pursuant to a family quarrel, and the dispute between the family members was resolved by way of compromise on 10.03.2016. On the date of application filed in the year 2020, there was no criminal case pending against the Writ Petitioner/Respondent and therefore, the disclosure of criminal case does not arise at all. In support of his contention, he also referred to the very same judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs Abhijit Singh Pawar reported in 2018 (18) SCC 733, wherein it was held in respect of determination of suppression and false information as follows:-

“12. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India was required to consider the difference of opinion in decisions of this Court on the question of suppression of information or submission of false information in the verification form on issues pertaining to involvement in criminal cases and the effect thereof. The law on the point was settled by this Court in following terms in paragraph No.38 of its decision as under:

38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal c