Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2335 (MAD)

Balakrishnan v. Director General of Police

2025-04-28

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2025
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/14500/2023 dated 31.05.2023 passed by the 3 rd respondent herein and to quash the same and direct the 2 nd respondent to grant appointment to the petitioner to the post of Grade-II PC-AR. 2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner are as follows:- (i) The 2 nd respondent, by way of notification no.02/2022 dated 30.06.2022 advertised to fill up the vacancies for the post of Grade-II PC-AR, Grade-II PC- TSP, Grade – II Jail Warder and Fireman numbering [2,180+1091+161+120] in total, 3552 including men and women. The petitioner, being an eligible candidate, applied for the post on 29.07.2022 and attended the written examination on 27.11.2022 and thereafter, attended physical efficiency test and certificate verification on 07.02.2023. While so, the 3 rd respondent issued impugned order dated 31.05.2023 indicating that the petitioner was rejected due to suppression of the criminal case in Sl.Nos.15,16 and 18 of the application, which was registered as against the petitioner on the file of Inspector of Police, Kanai police station for alleged offences under Secions 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.412 of 2018. (ii) The petitioner is not aware of the criminal case registered in his name and the petitioner is not at all involved in the occurrence and the dispute arose between petitioner's family and petitioner's father's brother's family regarding the lease land dispute. At that point of time, family members compromised the complaint after family panchayat and also requested to close the complaint, but it was registered against all the members of the family of the petitioner. Therafter, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.18681 of 2023 to quash the said FIR and the same was quashed on 18.08.2023. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned proceedings and to provide an appointment. 3. Therafter, the petitioner approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.18681 of 2023 to quash the said FIR and the same was quashed on 18.08.2023. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned proceedings and to provide an appointment. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that during police verification of petitioner's previous character and antecedents, he was given a form called Verification Roll Form, in that, Column 15 relates to a question 'Whether he was connected with any criminal case', Column 16 relates to 'Whether he has been arrested or convicted and sentenced undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence, Column 18 relates to 'pending civil or criminal case against him' While filling up the verification roll form on 06.04.2013, the petitioner had given answer as nil against all columns, but on the actual verification of his character and antecedents, it was found that he involved in a criminal case in Kanai Police Station on 24.07.2018 and a crime no.412 of 2018 was registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) of IPC. Verification of CCTNS records revealed that the petitioner was arrayed as A2 and the same was charge sheeted on 11.02.2019. As per the FIR, the petitioner had assaulted the complainant Murugan along with 3 others. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would also contend that as per Rules passed in G.O.No.101, Home (Pol.V) Dept., dated 30.01.2023 and Rule 13(b) & (e) of Special Rules of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service, no person, who is a candidate for police selection to the post of Gr.II.PC shall be eligible for appointment to the same by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service and a person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubts or due to the reasons that the complaint turned hostile, shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case. 5. 5. Besides the above, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would also contend that this Court in W.P.No.38289 of 2005 batch, by an order dated 28.02.2008 upheld the contents of Rule 13(b) and (e) of TNPSS Rules and it was also ordered that the failure of a person to disclose in the application form either his involvement in a criminal case and the pendency of a criminal case against him would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of material facts irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case. In the instant case, the petitioner was involved in a case and charge sheeted on 11.02.2019, he was informed of the rule position and that he had suppressed the fact of involvement of a criminal case, as it was not mentioned in the verification roll form. Hence, he was not appointed as Gr.II.PC. The plea of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware about the criminal case registered in his name is totally false, because the petitioner himself had surredered on 04.08.2018. Further, plea that the criminal case registered against him has been quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.412 of 2018 is concerned, the said FIR has been quashed on 18.08.2023, hence the petitioner can claim the right to appointment by participating in the next recruitment, as per Rules in Explanation (2) in Rule 13(b) and (e) and Special Rules to TNPSS Rules, 1978, thereby pleaded to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record carefully. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for the post of Grade-II PC-AR pursuant to the Notification No. 02/2022 dated 30.06.2022 and cleared all stages of selection. The impugned rejection order dated 31.05.2023 was issued on the ground that the petitioner failed to disclose his involvement in Crime No.412 of 2018 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) IPC, though it was later quashed in Crl.O.P. No.18681 of 2023 by this Court on 18.08.2023. 8. The impugned rejection order dated 31.05.2023 was issued on the ground that the petitioner failed to disclose his involvement in Crime No.412 of 2018 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(i) IPC, though it was later quashed in Crl.O.P. No.18681 of 2023 by this Court on 18.08.2023. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the registration of the criminal case, and that the case was based on a family land dispute, which was later settled amicably, for which, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents' contends that the petitioner deliberately suppressed material information, and as per Rule 13(b) and (e) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, such suppression is a valid ground for disqualification. 9. Upon hearing the arguments and going through the averments the following issues arises for consideration of this Court:- (I) Whether the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding his involvement in a criminal case? (ii) Whether such suppression, despite the quashing of the FIR, would still disentitle the petitioner from appointment? (iii) Whether the rejection is in consonance with Rule 13(b) and (e) and judicial precedents? 10. In so far as Issue No.1 is concerned, the records reveal that the petitioner surrendered on 04.08.2018 and was charge-sheeted on 11.02.2019. Hence, the plea that the petitioner was unaware of the case is factually incorrect. Further, Column 15, 16, and 18 of the Verification Roll Form were answered as "Nil", indicating non-disclosure, amounting to suppression of material facts. 11. As far as Issue No.2 is concerned, as per the ruling of this Court in W.P. No.38289 of 2005 batch dated 28.02.2008, even if the criminal case was quashed, suppression at the time of application is a valid ground for rejection. 12. Further, Issue No.3 is concerned, G.O. No.101, Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 30.01.2023 and Explanation 2 to Rule 13(b) explicitly state that even persons acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or for hostile witnesses are to be treated as “involved” in a criminal case. While the FIR has been quashed, it does not automatically entitle the petitioner to appointment in the same recruitment cycle, particularly when suppression occurred. However, the petitioner is not barred from applying in the future, and may participate in the next recruitment cycle as per the rules. 13. While the FIR has been quashed, it does not automatically entitle the petitioner to appointment in the same recruitment cycle, particularly when suppression occurred. However, the petitioner is not barred from applying in the future, and may participate in the next recruitment cycle as per the rules. 13. At this stage, it is pertinent to point out that G.O.Ms.No.160 Finance (Salaries) Department dated 29.06.2021, referred by the petitioner, provides a second chance to candidates who were denied police appointment due to past criminal cases, but whose FIRs were quashed by the High Court or who were acquitted. The key highlights from G.O.Ms.No.160 are, to give relief to candidates who were rejected solely because of prior criminal involvement even though the FIR was later quashed, or the case ended in acquittal, and the offence was not grave or heinous. This G.O. applies to earlier batches where candidates had been rejected on antecedent grounds and later got a clean record (quash/acquittal). It provides a mechanism to re-apply or be reconsidered based on merit. It does not mandate automatic reinstatement. Instead, it allows such candidates to be considered in future recruitment, subject to clean records at the time of re-application, discretion of the appointing authority and no suppression of facts during initial application. The said G.O.Ms.No.160 does not override suppression, hence it cannot reverse the rejection in the current recruitment cycle, but it strengthens the petitioner’s right to apply again in the next police recruitment, since the criminal case has been quashed. 14. It cannot be lost sight off the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.A.(MD) No.938 of 2020 as binding precedent that the case was quashed under 482 CrPC. Further, it was a petty dispute with no moral turpitude and the suppression was not willful. The opportunity to serve should not be denied especially when the petitioner has cleared all selection stages. It is true that this Court is guided by the principles laid down in W.A.(MD) No.938 of 2020 batch dated 05.06.2023, where it was held that candidates who were acquitted or whose cases were quashed for minor offences should not be deprived of police service, especially when no serious or heinous crime is involved. It is true that this Court is guided by the principles laid down in W.A.(MD) No.938 of 2020 batch dated 05.06.2023, where it was held that candidates who were acquitted or whose cases were quashed for minor offences should not be deprived of police service, especially when no serious or heinous crime is involved. Applying the same reasoning, the petitioner, having been cleared of charges in Crime No.412 of 2018, deserves reconsideration in the next recruitment, and the rejection solely on the ground of past involvement is harsh and disproportionate." 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the suppression of criminal antecedents in the verification roll is a serious lapse, irrespective of the outcome of the case and taking note of the fact that since the case has been quashed, the petitioner is eligible to apply in future recruitments, subject to the conditions laid down in Rule 13(b) & (e) and also taking note of G.O.Ms.No.160, Home (Police V) Department, dated 29.06.2021, which provides a framework for candidates whose criminal cases were quashed to be reconsidered in future recruitments, the petitioner, having now obtained quashment of the FIR, shall be entitled to participate in the next recruitment process, if otherwise eligible, but the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 needs no interference, hence, the present case is liable to be dismissed. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order dated 31.05.2023, however, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be eligible to participate in future recruitment processes, if otherwise qualified and eligible under law. No costs.