R.SURESH vs TAMIL NADU UNIFORMED SERVICES RECRUITMENT BOARD

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 14(b) - Explanation (1) - Indian Penal Code, Sections 323, 324 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Suppression of criminal case - Rejection of candidature - Employer's discretion - Trivial nature of offence - Family dispute - Honourable acquittal - Precedents: Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471; Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644; Vikas Kumar v. State of Rajasthan 2025 SCC OnLine 396; Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.A.No.938 of 2021 etc. batch. (Paras 3, 8)

(B) Where a candidate truthfully discloses a concluded criminal case which resulted in acquittal, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents but cannot be compelled to appoint. However, in cases of trivial nature or family disputes, the employer may ignore suppression or condone lapse. (Paras 8(i), 8(ii))

(C) An acquittal on technical ground or benefit of doubt, as opposed to clean acquittal, may still be considered by employer. But in the present case, the acquittal was honourable as the complainant turned hostile and no incriminating evidence was found. (Paras 8(i) 38.4.3, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, who served in the Indian Army for 16 years, applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable in response to two recruitment notifications. In the first application (2020), he suppressed involvement in a criminal case under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. His candidature was rejected. In the second application (2022), he disclosed the case and his subsequent acquittal in 2014. The criminal case arose from a family dispute where the petitioner's mother had lodged a complaint. The case ended in acquittal as the mother and other witnesses turned hostile. Despite disclosure, the authority rejected his candidature citing Rule 14(b) explanation (1) that a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or due to hostile witness is treated as involved in a criminal case. (Paras 2, 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The court held that the rejection was unsustainable. The criminal case was trivial, arising from a family dispute, and the petitioner had been honourably acquitted seven years before the selection process. Applying the principles in Avtar Singh and Sandeep Kumar, the suppression in the first application could be condoned given the trivial nature, and the truthful disclosure in the second application should have been considered leniently. The impugned orders were set aside. (Paras 9, 10)

Issues: The main issues were whether the employer's rejection of candidature based on involvement in a criminal case that ended in acquittal was valid, and whether the suppression of such a trivial case warranted disqualification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in cases of trivial offences, especially family disputes resulting in acquittal, the employer must exercise discretion liberally and not mechanically apply the rule that treats acquittal on benefit of doubt as involvement. The nature of the offence, the fact of honourable acquittal, and the candidate's subsequent truthful disclosure are relevant factors. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned proceedings dated 06.01.2022 and 08.06.2023 set aside. The second respondent directed to consider the matter afresh in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court within 12 weeks. No costs. (Para 10)

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Petitioner argues suppression of trivial case with acquittal should be condoned; respondents cite Rule 14(b) and authority's discretion. (Para 4 , 5 )

2. Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; respondent directed to reconsider within 12 weeks. (Para 10 )

3. What is the employer's discretion when a candidate truthfully discloses a concluded criminal case?

Employer may consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint; but if case is trivial and acquittal is clean, rejection may be unsustainable. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )

4. When can suppression of a criminal case be condoned by the employer?

Suppression may be condoned when the case is trivial in nature, such as a family dispute resulting in acquittal, and the employer exercises discretion. (Para 8 , 9 )

5. How should a family dispute resulting in acquittal on technical grounds be treated for recruitment in uniformed services?

Such a case is considered trivial and the acquittal is honourable; rejection on that ground is not sustainable. (Para 9 , 10 )

ORDER

The relief sought in this writ petition is to call for the records relating to the impugned Order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No:A3/23722/2021 dated 06.01.2022 and in C.No:A3/006111/2023 dated 08.06.2023, quash the same as unsustainable in law and issue consequential directions to the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner (bearing Registration No’s 1201544 and 2308049 of the Common Recruitment of the year 2020 and 2022 respectively) as Grade II Police Constable.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the Indian Army as a Sepoy on 17.07.2003 and relieved in August 2019. Pursuant to the notification issued by the first respondent in the year 2020, the petitioner has applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable, Jail Warden & Firemen and also cleared all the examinations. But, his candidature was rejected by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 06.01.2022 on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the criminal case registered against him under Section 323 & 324 of I.P.C by Papparapatti Police Station. Once again, the first respondent issued another Notification on 30.06.2022 for the very same post and again the petitioner has applied for the said posts and came out successful in all the examinations. But, this time, the petitioner has mentioned the facts of criminal case and his honourable acquittal from the said case. Under these circumstances, the third respondent vide proceedings dated 08.06.2023, again rejected the petitioner’s candidature on the ground that while conducting police verification, it was found that the petitioner was concerned in Papparapati Police Station in Crime Number:44/2009, dated 26.01.2009 and the case ended in acquittal. Hence, his appointment is not feasible for consideration for the post of Grade-II Police Constable in the Uniformed Service. Challenging the aforesaid proceedings dated 06.01.2022 and 08.06.2023, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the issue arises in this writ petition is no longer res-integra and the same was decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of judgments and the same reads as follows:

(i) Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India , reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471

(ii) Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar , reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644

(iii) Vikas Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan , reported in 2025 SCC online 396

(iv) Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.938 of 2021 and etc., batch , dated 05.06.2023.

All the above decisions held that in case, there is a suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filing the application/verification form and such fact later comes to the knowledge of employer, any of the recourses formulated therein appropriate to the case may be adopted. In a case trivial in nature, in which conviction has been recorded, such as shouting of slogan or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered any incumbent unfit for the post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. And if the acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence 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 the application by exercising their discretion.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in the present case, the petitioner’s name was not found in the F.I.R., or Charge Sheet and only his nickname was found as A2 and moreover, it was only a family dispute that the petitioner’s mother made allegation against the petitioner and his father, which was subsequently resolved between them. Even the Criminal Court has recorded honourable acquittal in favou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8258

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
R.SURESH – Appellant
Versus
TAMIL NADU UNIFORMED SERVICES RECRUITMENT BOARD – Respondent

A candidate's suppression of a trivial criminal case that ended in honourable acquittal may be condoned, and truthful disclosure thereafter requires the employer to consider the nature of the offence rather than mechanically disqualify.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. What is the employer's discretion when a candidate truthfully discloses a concluded criminal case?

4. When can suppression of a criminal case be condoned by the employer?

5. How should a family dispute resulting in acquittal on technical grounds be treated for recruitment in uniformed services?

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8258

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANIR.SURESH – AppellantVersusTAMIL NADU UNIFORMED SERVICES RECRUITMENT BOARD – Respondent

A candidate's suppression of a trivial criminal case that ended in honourable acquittal may be condoned, and truthful disclosure thereafter requires the employer to consider the nature of the offence rather than mechanically disqualify.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. What is the employer's discretion when a candidate truthfully discloses a concluded criminal case?

4. When can suppression of a criminal case be condoned by the employer?

5. How should a family dispute resulting in acquittal on technical grounds be treated for recruitment in uniformed services?

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
R.SURESH – Appellant
Versus
TAMIL NADU UNIFORMED SERVICES RECRUITMENT BOARD – Respondent