Director Genl. Of Police, Mayilapur vs J. Raghunees

2023 INSC 944 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1183 OF 2012

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TAMILNADU, MYLAPORE … APPELLANT

Versus

J. RAGHUNEES … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai has

preferred this appeal against the final judgment and order

dated 24.04.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court allowing writ appeal no. 1487 of 2008 filed by

the respondent, J. Raghunees, after setting aside the

judgment and order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.10.20 petition.

16:45:53 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 9

CA NO. 1183 OF 2012

2. In short, the judgment and order of the Division Bench is

of reversal. The order dismissing the writ petition of the

respondent was set aside in the writ appeal by the Division

Bench and the writ petition was ultimately allowed.

3. The respondent was selected for the post of Grade-II

Constable after he qualified the written test. Upon his

selection, his antecedents were inquired into and in that

connection an exercise for verification of his character and

other antecedents was undertaken. In the discreet inquiry

conducted for the purpose of the aforesaid verification, it

was revealed that the respondent was involved in a

criminal case registered as case crime no. 392 of 1997 for

offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(II) of

Indian Penal Code. The respondent was the third accused

in the said case. He was acquitted in the said case by the

Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2001 but

these facts were not disclosed by him.

4. Though there is some controversy as to the nature of the

aforesaid acquittal i.e., whether it was an honorable

acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt but the

same is not very material for us in the present appeal.

Page 2 of 9 CA NO. 1183 OF 2012

Nonetheless, it may be pertinent to note that the writ court

recorded a finding upon consideration of the judgment and

order of acquittal dated 19.02.2001 that the charges were

not proved against the respondent beyond reasonable

doubt and the acquittal of the respondent was not strictly

on the basis of doubt but because of want of evidence and

as such it was an honorable acquittal. Notwithstanding as

to whether the respondent was acquitted by giving benefit

of doubt or was acquitted honorably, the issue before us is

quite different and does not depend upon the nature of the

acquittal.

5. The issue which has given rise to this appeal is that

whether the respondent is guilty of suppression of material

fact with regard to his involvement in the above criminal

case so as to disentitle him to employment.

6. The authorities vide order dated 09.11.2004 held that the

respondent was not entitled to appointment as he was

guilty of suppressing material fact by not stating about his

involvement in the criminal case while filling up column 15

of the attestation form.

Page 3 of 9 CA NO. 1183 OF 2012

7. The above order was challenged by the respondent by

means of a writ petition before the High Court, which was

dismissed but in writ appeal the judgment and order of the

Learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ appeal

was allowed on the reasoning that the respondent was

acquitted from the criminal case much before the

verification and therefore, the respondent rightly thinking

that his involvement in the criminal case is of no relevance

bona fidely failed to mention about the same and as such

suppression of this information cannot be considered to be

willful or intentional so as to deprive him of service

pursuant to his selection.

8. The Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules,

1978 provides for the eligibility criteria for the recruitment

and appointment in the State Police Service. It, inter alia,

provides that no person shall be eligible for the

appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless

his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him

for such service. For the sake of convenience, the relevant

Rule 14(b) is reproduced below:

Page 4 of 9

CA NO. 1183 OF 2012

“Extract of Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978 14(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority.

i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service and

ii) that the character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service.

iii) that such a person does not have more than one wife living.”

9. The aforesaid rule only provides for the eligibility criteria

and that, apart from other things, the character and

antecedents of the candidate are relevant and material

factor for giving him entry in the service. Additionally, the

respondent was required to disclose certain information

about himself by filling the verification roll. The said

verification roll is very relevant and important for the

purposes of the present case, especially its column 15 and

in particular the language of the said column which reads

as under: -

“15 - Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant?”

Page 5 of 9 CA NO. 1183 OF 2012

10. The aforesaid column in unequivocal terms inquires from

the candidate about his involvement in any criminal case

whether in past or present and unaffected by its status or

result.

11. The respondent in filling up the said verification roll in

reply to the query made in the aforesaid column stated ‘NO’

meaning thereby he clearly stated that he had not been

involved in any criminal case.

12. Apparently in the admitted facts, the respondent was

involved in a criminal case but had been acquitted

therefrom. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent was

not concerned with any criminal case. Therefore, he ought

to have disclosed the correct position that he was involved

in a criminal case but had been acquitted. The respondent

instead of giving the full and complete information as

above simply stated ‘NO’ as if he was never involved in any

criminal case. The answer of the respondent to the

question posed in column 15 of the verification roll

undoubtedly conveys the wrong information and amounts

to the suppression of the correct information.

Page 6 of 9 CA NO. 1183 OF 2012

13. The issue in the matter is not of eligibility of the respondent

to the post in the light of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu

Special Police Subordinate Service Rules,1978 rather that

of suppression of material information which was required

to be disclosed in column 15 of the verification roll. The

respondent has certainly not disclosed the correct

information. His honorable acquittal or acquittal by giving

benefit of doubt is not material and relevant but what is

relevant is the full and complete disclosure of the

information regarding his involvement in a criminal case

which has been suppressed by him.

14. In Avtar Singh1 case, a three-Judge Bench of this Court

while dealing with a similar kind of situation summarised

the legal position by stating that (i) Information given by

the candidate to the employer as to his conviction,

acquittal, arrest or pendency of a criminal case, whether

before or after entering into service must be true and there

should be no suppression or false mention of required

information. (ii) In cases where conviction or acquittal had

already taken place before filling the

1 Avtar Singh vs Union of India Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471

Page 7 of 9 CA NO. 1183 OF 2012

application/verification form, the employer may consider

all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take

appropriate decision as to the continuance of the

employee. (iii) and even if the employee had made truthful

declaration of a concluded criminal case, the employer still

has the right to consider antecedents of the

candidate/employee and cannot be compelled to appoint

him/her.

15. In other words, the candidate in the first instance is

obliged to give correct information as to his conviction,

acquittal or arrest or pendency of the criminal case and

there should be no suppression or false mention of

required information. Secondly, even if truthful

declaration is made by him, he would not be entitled to

appointment as a matter of right and that the employer

still has the right to consider his antecedents.

16. In the case at hand, though the respondent may be eligible

for appointment but since he has not disclosed the

complete information with regard to his involvement in a

criminal case, wherein he might have been acquitted

earlier even before verification, he cannot escape the guilt

Page 8 of 9 CA NO. 1183 OF 2012

of suppressing the material information as required by

column 15 of the verification roll. Keeping in mind that

the respondent was a candidate for recruitment to a

disciplined force, the non-disclosure of the information of

his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent

acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his

character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough

to disentitle him from employment.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

judgment and order of the Division Bench passed in writ

appeal cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside

restoring that of the writ court.

18. The appeal is allowed and the writ petition stands

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

…………………… J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

…………………… J.

(PANKAJ MITHAL) New Delhi;

October 20, 2023.

Page 9 of 9