The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of disclosing information about criminal cases in the context of job suitability, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 24.03.2022 in W.P(MD)No.17916 of 2020 and allow the Writ Appeal.)

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. Challenging the order of learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2022, made in W.P.(MD) No.17916 of 2020, the petitioner in the writ petition has preferred the above appeal.

2. Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Veera Kathirvan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents.

3. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as follows:

Pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, the appellant applied to the post of Grade – I Police Constable for the year 2017-2018. The appellant attended the written examination and secured 62 marks and qualified for Physical Verification Test and Endurance Test. He has also passed in the Physical Verification Test and Endurance Test. However, the appellant received a communication from the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, dated 26.09.2020 informing that the appellant was not appointed as his antecedents were not satisfactory and that the appellant who got himself involved in two criminal cases had suppressed his involvement in the criminal cases. This communication was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge.

4. It is admitted by the appellant himself that a complaint was registered against him and his family members in Crime No.111 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Though it is stated in the communication, dated 26.09.2020, that there were two cases registered against him, it is stated by the appellant that the appellant was shown as accused only in one case and the statement of facts recorded by the third respondent in the impugned order is not correct. The counsel for the appellant has also convinced this Court that there was only one case against him and he was released on anticipatory bail. It is further stated that the criminal complaint that was registered against the appellant was also quashed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 1466 of 2019.

5. Learned Single Judge after referring to the decided cases, particularly the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar in C.A.No.4960 of 2021 dated 25.08.2021, dismissed the Writ Petition only on the ground that the Court cannot consider the suitability, eligibility and the antecedents of the individual overlooking the decision of the Selection Committee in this regard.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, particularly to paragraph 38.4, which reads as follows:

“38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/ verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to t