The cancellation of a candidate's application for non-disclosure of a minor offence requires a reasonable and objective assessment of all relevant factors, including the trivial nature of the crime and the candidate's age.

ORDER :

1. Writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 05.01.2022 of the 4th respondent, rejecting the petitioners candidature for selection to Grade II Police Constable post in Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Service, on the ground of non disclosure of previous criminal case in his application.

2. The petitioner applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable-AR, recruitment for which post applications were called for in 2020. The petitioner successfully cleared the written examination and physical test. The petitioner submitted his original certificates for verification on 26.07.2021, and after evaluation of the application, the Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board, published final provisional selection list on 25.11.2021, provisionally selecting the petitioner to the post of Grade II Police Constable-AR under the sports quota. While the petitioner was anxiously awaiting the appointment order, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 05.01.2022, rejecting his candidature for non disclosure of previous criminal case. The respondents invoked Rule 14 (b)(ii) and (iv) of the TAMIL NADU SPECIAL POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1978, for rejecting the petitioners candidature for non disclosure of his involvement in a petty case under Section 75 (1)(c) of the TAMIL NADU CITY POLICE ACT , 1888, which culminated in a Crl. Case in Cr.No.625 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore. The Criminal Court found the petitioner guilty and fined him Rs.400/- which he paid on the same day. According to the petitioner, the impugned order failed to note the triviality of the offence under Section 75 of the TAMIL NADU CITY POLICE ACT , 1888. The petitioner further stated that as the offence was petty, it would not come within the ambit of moral turpitude, so as to bar him from Government Service. The petitioner further stated that the impugned order was passed in violation of para 38(4) of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others , (2016) 8 SCC 471 , wherein leverage was given to cases of petty nature. The petitioner therefore prayed that impugned order was unsustainable and same deserved to be set aside.

3. The respondents filed detailed counter stating inter alia that the Director General of Police and Head of Police force Tamil Nadu, Chennai, assessed police verification of character, antecedents and medical examination of candidates who were provisionally selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable. It was further submitted that, at the time of verification, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.625 of 2019, under Section 75 (1)(c) of the TAMIL NADU CITY POLICE ACT , 1888. The petitioner was arrested on 14.08.2019, and the case was taken on file on 30.08.2019. The petitioner was convicted before the learned Judicial Magistrate VI and fine of Rs.500/- was imposed on 30.08.2019. According to the respondents, as the petitioner failed to mention his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case in the application in the verification column in S.No.15 and 16, the petitioners candidature was rejected by invoking Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. The respondents relying on Full Bench judgment of this court dated 28.02.2008, and certain other judgments of this court as well the Hon'ble Apex court, stated that the impugned order could not be found fault with, as the same was passed because of suppression of the petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case. The respondents therefore stated tha