AKHIL P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as a Police Driver, was not called for training alleging that he had indulged in certain criminal cases and thus his character and antecedents are not befitting to the said post. The petitioner challenged Annexure A9 communication in this regard by contending that the three criminal cases in which he was implicated had occurred as part of his student life activities at Mahatma Gandhi College, Thiruvananthapuram and the actual allegations made against him were only of a trifling nature.

(2.) He also contended that among the three cases, two cases were already over as he pleaded guilty to the charges and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,900.00 each. In the third case, he was acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, after a full-fledged trial by Annexure A4 judgment, on finding that none of the witnesses including the police officials were able to identify any of the accused persons. He also attempted to clarify that the Verification Roll which he had to submit before joining the service was in a bilingual proforma and the terms used in the Malayalam language were different from the requirements given in the English version. According to him, because of that confusion, he did not furnish the details of the two cases which were already disposed of on payment of a fine, though he provided the details of the other case.

(3.) The respondents contended that offences alleged against him are grave in nature and there is no justification for suppressing the relevant facts in the Verification Roll and thus he is not suitable to be appointed in the Police force. The State further contended that the Kerala Police constabulary being a disciplined and uniformed force, persons with unblemished character alone could be appointed therein. It is also contended that the terms used in the Verification Roll were specific and precise and hence the contention that it caused confusion is incorrect, especially when the petitioner is a graduate.