Suppression of criminal antecedents in application forms is a valid ground for disqualification, even if the criminal case is later quashed.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/14500/2023 dated 31.05.2023 passed by the 3^rd respondent herein and to quash the same and direct the 2^nd respondent to grant appointment to the petitioner to the post of Grade-II PC-AR.

2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner are as follows:-

(i) The 2^nd respondent, by way of notification no.02/2022 dated 30.06.2022 advertised to fill up the vacancies for the post of Grade-II PC-AR, Grade-II PC- TSP, Grade – II Jail Warder and Fireman numbering [2,180+1091+161+120] in total, 3552 including men and women. The petitioner, being an eligible candidate, applied for the post on 29.07.2022 and attended the written examination on 27.11.2022 and thereafter, attended physical efficiency test and certificate verification on 07.02.2023. While so, the 3^rd respondent issued impugned order dated 31.05.2023 indicating that the petitioner was rejected due to suppression of the criminal case in Sl.Nos.15,16 and 18 of the application, which was registered as against the petitioner on the file of Inspector of Police, Kanai police station for alleged offences under Secions 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.412 of 2018.

(ii) The petitioner is not aware of the criminal case registered in his name and the petitioner is not at all involved in the occurrence and the dispute arose between petitioner's family and petitioner's father's brother's family regarding the lease land dispute. At that point of time, family members compromised the complaint after family panchayat and also requested to close the complaint, but it was registered against all the members of the family of the petitioner. Therafter, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.18681 of 2023 to quash the said FIR and the same was quashed on 18.08.2023. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned proceedings and to provide an appointment.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that during police verification of petitioner's previous character and antecedents, he was given a form called Verification Roll Form, in that, Column 15 relates to a question 'Whether he was connected with any criminal case', Column 16 relates to 'Whether he has been arrested or convicted and sentenced undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence, Column 18 relates to 'pending civil or criminal case against him' While filling up the verification roll form on 06.04.2013, the petitioner had given answer as nil against all columns, but on the actual verification of his character and antecedents, it was found that he involved in a criminal case in Kanai Police Station on 24.07.2018 and a crime no.412 of 2018 was registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) of IPC. Verification of CCTNS records revealed that the petitioner was arrayed as A2 and the same was charge sheeted on 11.02.2019. As per the FIR, the petitioner had assaulted the complainant Murugan along with 3 others.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would also contend that as per Rules passed in G.O.No.101, Home (Pol.V) Dept., dated 30.01.2023 and Rule 13(b) & (e) of Special Rules of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service, no person, who is a candidate for police selection to the post of Gr.II.PC shall be eligible for appointment to the same by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service and a person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubts or due to the reasons that the complaint turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case.

5. Besides the above, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would also contend that this Court in W.P.