1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR WP(MD)No.7402 of 2011 And MP(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 M.Jayakumar :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police,Kamarajar Salai,Chennai-4. 3.The Director, The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai - 600002 :Respondents PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to quash the impugned order in Na.Ka.No 484/108266/Niyamanam 1(2)/2011 dated 26.04.2011 on the file of the respondent No.2 and consequently directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as II Grade Constable of police in the Tamilnadu Police Department for the year 2009-2010 forthwith. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Venkatesan For Respondents:Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen,Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order, dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, which states that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of involvement in Crime No. 469 of 2010, on the file of the Special Sub- Inspector of Police, CSCID, Madurai, under Sections 4(1)(a) and 7(1)(e) of LPG (RSD) 2000 read with 7(1) (a) (II) of EC Act 1955 and therefore, as per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, he is not eligible to be considered for the post of Grade II Police Constable, in Tamil Nadu Police Department for the year 2009-2010. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to a notification issued for recruitment to the post of Grade II Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Department for the year 2009-2010, he made an application and his registration No. was 2408106. According to him, he belongs to most Backward Class Community. It is his further submission that he had passed the written test and found to be successful, in medical examination also However, the Director General of Police, Chennai, by the impugned order, dated 04.05.2011, has intimated the petitioner that since a criminal case in Crime No. 469 of 2010 was registered on the file of the Special Sub- Inspector of Police, CSCID, Madurai, under Sections 4(1)(a) and 7(1)(e) of LPG (RSD) 2000 read with 7(1) (a) (II) of EC Act 1955, arraying the petitioner as accused No.2 and in as much as, there was a suppression of the said fact, in the application form, about the criminal antecedents, the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment to the said post. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Assailing the correctness of the impugned order, Mr.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier on 09.11.2010, when he travelled in a Auto Rickshaw, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, inspected the auto and found one Mr.Selladurai, and Thiru.Jamal, were using Government Cylinders for commercial purpose and after the seizure of 5 Cylinder, registered a case under the above said Sections. It is his further contention that subsequently, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and vide order in R.C.No 95983/2010/Ku.Po7, dated 22.06.2011, and he levied fine against V.Chelladurai, the owner of the Auto and that the petitioner was found innocent. The petitioner who was falsely implicated as second accused, in the above said crime, has been deleted from the array of accused. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the application for the post of Grade II Police Constable was made on 29.05.2010, he has categorically stated that no criminal case has been registered against him and that therefore, there is no wilful suppression of fact. According to him, when the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, has deleted the name of the petitioner, he is entitled to be considered for selection to the post of Grade - II Police Constable. 5.On instructions from the respondents and inviting the attention of this Court to the willful suppression of the writ petitioner, in not disclosing the registration of the above said criminal case, in the reply given to the petitioner as against Column No. 15 in the declaration submitted on 03.12.2010 to the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the contention of the petitioner that there was no wilful suppression of the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case, is liable to be rejected. 6.Placing reliance on the Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan and Others Vs. the Chairman and others reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97, the Additional Government Pleader further submitted that Rule 14 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978, has been introduced with an object of classifying persons who were involved in criminal cases and persons not involved in criminal cases, for entry into police service and to ensure their character and antecedents were beyond shadow of doubt. According to him, rule which has been introduced to maintain purity in administration provides check, at the entry point itself He further submitted that though at the time of making the initial application, dated 29.05.2010, to the post of Grade II Police Constable, the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case, subsequently, the petitioner has been arrested by Special Sub-Inspector of Police, CSCID, Madurai and a case in Crime No. 469 of 2010 under Sections 4(1)(a) and 7(1) (e) of LPG (RSD) 2000 read with 7(1) (a) (II) of EC Act 1955 has been registered, against him, which he deliberately suppressed at the time of verification. 7.Inviting the attention of Column of the verification, stated supra, learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that when a specific query was raised as to whether the petitioner had ever been arrested or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 sentenced to undergo imprisonment or to pay a fine in any criminal or other offences and when details were sought for, suppressing the pendency of the criminal case stated supra, the petitioner affirmatively made a declaration stating that he was not arrested and no criminal case was pending According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, a person who wilfully suppressed the factum of arrest and pendency of a criminal case at the time of verification, is not eligible for appointment to the police department, as he is not suitable for police department, as per the rules and the dictum laid down in the Full Bench Judgment, squarely applies to the case on hand. In addition to the above, he also submitted that enquiry done by the District Revenue Officer and deletion of the name of the petitioner along with reference to the proceedings initiated under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and it does not mean that the petitioner has been absolved of the offences, stated supra. For the above said reasons, he prayed that there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference. 8.Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9.While testing the validity of the rules with reference its object of classifying the person, who were involved in the criminal case and persons not involved in criminal case for entry into police service and on the aspect of suppression of involvement in criminal case, the Full Bench held that "therefore we hold that the failure of a person to disclose his involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of time, when the application form is filled up is fatal. His subsequent disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal will not cure the defect. In any case, the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case will then fall under any one of the 2 Explanations under clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise". 10.In a case on hand, though the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case on 29.05.2010, when he made the initial application for selection to the post of Grade II, Police Constable for the year 2009-2010, subsequently a criminal case has been registered on 09.11.2010, in Crime No 469 of 2010 under Sections 4(1)(a) and 7(1)(e) of LPG (RSD) 2000 read with 7(1) (a) (II) of EC Act 1955 by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, CSCID, Madurai and that he has also been arrested. Though the petitioner was arrested, he has deliberately suppressed his involvement in the verification submitted to the respondents. Column 15 of the verification roll reads as follows:- "15. Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant?" Have you ever been arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and to pay a fine in any criminal case or other offences? If so give details in C.C.No. and the Court. 11.For the above said question regarding involvement, arrest, etc., the petitioner has given a positive answer that he was not involved in any criminal case or arrest which is contrary to facts. Suppression is per se https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 apparent. Yet another factor to be considered is whether the order passed under Section 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, can be construed as deletion of the name of the petitioner from array of the accused in the criminal case. The petitioner was A-2 in the criminal case. The proceedings initiated under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, is for a specific purpose, contemplated under the Essential Commodities Act. No material has been placed before this Court, as to whether a final report has been placed before the competent Court stating that the name of the petitioner has been deleted, or whether any complaint has been lodged deleting the name of the petitioner. 12.As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader that merely because the petitioner has been deleted in the above said proceedings initiated under Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act, that does not mean that he has been totally absolved of criminal action and can claim any benefit under explanation (II) to Section 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978. As suppression of fact is evident from his own declaration, the petitioner has no legal or statutory right to seek for any Mandamus. There are no merits in this Writ Petition. 13.Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Secretary to Government The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2. The Director General of Police Office of the Director General of Police Kamarajar Salai Chennai - 4 3. The Director The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Chennai - 600002 +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.23539. Vsg W.P.(MD).No.7402 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 RP/28.07.2011/4P/5C.18.07.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/