IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.04.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P. No. 33755 of 2006 OA.9026/1998 V.Vezhavendan Police Constable Trainee No.29 (Services since terminated) Temporary Police Training School Cuddalore ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram Range, Villupuram 2.The Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District, Cuddalore ...Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.9026 of 1998 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records connected with the D.O.714/98-H1/PR/119/98 dated 23.07.1998 of the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Ilamvaludhi For Respondents : Mrs. Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate ORDER The Original Application No.9026 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records connected with D.O.714/98-H1/PR/119/98 dated 23.07.1998 of the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant and monetary benefits. On abolition of the Tribunal, the original application stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 33755 of 2006. 2. The petitioner was temporarily appointed as an Armed Reserve Police Constable at Virudhachalam by the proceedings dated 25.09.1997 of the Commandant, TSP, Avadi, Chennai. In the appointment order, it was mentioned that it is a temporary post and if he has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ given any correct information and if it is found to be false at a later date, he may be terminated from service without any notice. Later on, it was found by the Department that the petitioner, even prior to entering into service, involved himself in a case in Cr.No. 440 of 1994 under Sections 294 and 324 IPC for having involved in criminal activities and the said case was pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate I, Virudachalam. As the said fact was suppressed by the petitioner and it is against the norms for selection in the police force, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the charge memo was issued and after enquiry, he was terminated from service on 23.07.1998 of the second respondent. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that in the criminal case he has been acquitted and further, in the impugned order of termination no reason has been given for terminating him from service. Hence, he challenged the order of termination before the Tribunal. 4. Even though no counter was filed by the respondents, the learned Government Advocate relied upon the decision of the full bench of this Court reported in (Manikandan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Chennai) 2008 2 CTC 97 wherein it was held that employer can prescribe any qualification for appointment and it includes prescription of disqualifications also. She would further contend that the petitioner, having involved himself in a criminal activity, which was suppressed by him, he cannot be permitted to continue in the disciplinary force and therefore, he was rightly terminated from the service. According to the Government Advocate, even though no notice at all is required because the petitioner was only appointed on temporary basis and he was a trainee, in compliance of principles of natural justice, he was given sufficient opportunity before passing the order of removal. In any event, the impugned order is valid and in accordance with law and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard both sides. In this case, since the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case has been suppressed by him and later on, it was found by the department, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority after affording sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to putforth his defence has held that inasmuch as the petitioner has suppressed his involvement in a criminal case, he is not entitled to continue in the disciplinary force and terminated him from service. 6. In the disciplinary force, a person who has been temporarily selected, having suppressed his conduct, especially in pending criminal cases, is not entitled to any notice before his removal from service. In the present case, in the appointment order itself it is very clearly stated that the petitioner is temporarily appointed and he has to undergo training. It was also further stated that if any information given by him is found to be false at a later on point of time, he will be automatically dismissed from service. It has been further proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he involved himself in the criminal case in Crime No.440 of 1994 and it was pending enquiry before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudachalam. Even though the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner was ultimately acquitted from that criminal case, the fact remains that on the date when he submitted his application for appointment to the post of Police Constable, he has suppressed the very vital information. But for that suppression, he would have not been given any appointment at all. The respondents, even though under law, can straight away terminate the petitioner from service without issuing any further notice at all, have followed the principles of natural justice and issued notice callling upon him to appear for an enquiry. In the enquiry, evidence was adduced and recorded. Thereafter, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer finding the petitioner guilty. On receipt of the enquiry report, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order. 7. In the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in (Manikandan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Uniform Services Recruitment Board, Chennai) 2008 2 CTC 97 it was held that employer can prescribe any qualification for appointment and it includes prescription of disqualifications also. In Para Nos. 13 and 14, it was held as follows:- "13. Persons who were never involved in criminal cases, need not be treated as equals to or on par with persons who were involved in Criminal cases merely because they are acquitted later, especially, in the matter of selection to the Police Service of the State. The classification made between them, is not only reasonable but also has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 14. As a matter of fact, this Court as well as the Supreme Court, on a number of occasions, have upheld the decisions of the Government not to issue appointment orders to persons, who were involved in Criminal cases, despite having been acquitted subsequently....." 8. The petitioner is expected to make a true disclosure about his previous involvement in any criminal case as a condition precedent for selection to the post of Head Constable in a disciplinary force. When that was suppressed by the petitioner, the second respondent is justified in passing the impugned order of termination. The petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ssp/rsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police Villupuram Range, Villupuram 2.The Superintendent of Police Cuddalore District, Cuddalore + 1 cc to Government Pleader Advocate Sr.25672 W.P.No.33755 of 2006 RSI(CO) EU 8.11.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/