IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, R. VIJAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Gokul Ganesh - Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Police, Chennai & Others – Respondents
Review Application (MD). No. 59 of 2023
Decided On : 08-03-2024
Review Petition - Grade-II Police Constable - The court dismissed the review petition seeking to review the order that rejected the petitioner's candidature for the post of Grade-II Police Constable due to his involvement in a criminal case and suppression of the same during the application process. The court found that the petitioner's failure to mention the filing of the charge sheet at the time of police verification rendered him ineligible for the current selection process, but he would be eligible for consideration in the next selection if qualified.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Grade-II Police Constable, had his candidature rejected due to his involvement in a criminal case and suppression of the same during the application process. The court had dismissed the writ appeal challenging the rejection and subsequently dismissed the review petition seeking to review the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's failure to mention the filing of the charge sheet at the time of police verification rendered him ineligible for the current selection process, but he would be eligible for consideration in the next selection if qualified. The review application was dismissed as there were no merits in it.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case, suppression of material facts during the application process, and the eligibility for the selection process based on the timing of the charge sheet and police verification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to disclose the filing of the charge sheet at the time of police verification rendered him ineligible for the current selection process, in accordance with Rule 14 (b) (iv) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules. However, the court also determined that the petitioner would be entitled to be considered in the next selection process if he is otherwise qualified.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed as there were no merits in it, and the court upheld the previous decision regarding the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Grade-II Police Constable.
JUDGMENT :
R. Vijayakumar, J.
(Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 r/w Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order in W.A(MD)No.474 of 2022, dated 05.06.2023 on the file of this Court.)
1. The instant review petition has been filed seeking to review the order of this Court, dated 05.06.2023 in W.A.(MD)No.474 of 2022.
2. The petitioner is an aspirant to the post of Grade-II Police Constable. His candidature was rejected by the authorities by an order, dated 06.05.2020 on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and he had suppressed the same at the time of filing his application. The petitioner had challenged the said order in W.P(MD)No.6493 of 2020. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Writ Court on 21.04.2022. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed W.A(MD)No.474 of 2022. This Court by an order, dated 05.06.2023 had dismissed the writ appeal on the ground that the petitioner had not mentioned about the filing of the charge sheet at the time of police verification on 12.09.2017. Though the charge sheet was quashed by this Court on 28.09.2018, this Court has found that he would be eligible for being considered only for the next selection. Seeking to review the said order, the present review application has been filed.
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in FIR registered in Crime No.139 of 2017 on the file of Thirukkokarnam Police Station, the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused. Even at the time of police verification on 12.09.2017, no criminal case was pending and till 24.04.2018, no charege sheet was laid before the concerned Court.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents had contended that charge sheet has been laid before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai on 25.07.2017, in which, the petitioner has been arrayed as the second accused. However, at the time of police verification, the petitioner had suppressed about the pendency of the criminal case and hence, the review petition may be dismissed.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records.
6. The petitioner had made an application to the post of Grade-II Police Constable on 15.02.2017 and the FIR registered in Crime No.139 of 2017 on 17.05.2017 does not reveal the name of the petitioner. Therefore, on the date of submission of application, no criminal case was pending as against the writ petitioner. However, a charge sheet has been laid before Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukkottai on 25.07.2017, in which the petitioner is arrayed as the second accused. The police verification has been conducted on 12.09.2017 and the review petitioner has not mentioned about the pendency of the criminal case. By an order, dated 06.05.2020, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.
7. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the filing of the chargesheet by the concerned police on 25.07.2017 and therefore, non mentioning of the involvement in the criminal case during police verification on 12.09.2017 cannot be considered to be a suppression of material fact. Even assuming the contention of the petitioner to be true that he was not aware of the filing of the charge sheet, yet it cannot be considered that the petitioner was not at all involved in the criminal case at the time of police verification. Though it may not fall under the category of suppression of material fact, the case of the petitioner would fall under the category of involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case on the date of police verification.
8. The charge sheet has been quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 17444 of 2018 on 28.09.2018. As per Rule 14 (b) (iv) of Tamil Nadu Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules, a candidate should not be involved in any criminal case before the date of police verification. In the present case, admittedly a charge sheet has been laid as against the review petitioner on 25.07.2017
Failure to disclose involvement in a criminal case at the time of police verification renders a candidate ineligible for the current selection process, but the candidate may be eligible for considera....
The main legal point established is the significance of truthful disclosure of criminal involvement by candidates applying for government positions, as emphasized in the Avtar Singh case and subseque....
The impact of acquittal in a criminal case on appointments, considering the seriousness of the case and the Supreme Court's decision in Avtar Singh case.
A candidate's non-involvement in a criminal case, confirmed by removal from the FIR, allows for consideration in the current recruitment process despite prior allegations.
Point of Law : Suppression of information about pending criminal case in verification form is a sufficient ground for canceling the candidature or withholding appointment.
The employer has the discretion to consider the nature of the offence, the impact of acquittal, and the overall suitability of the candidate for employment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.