C.VIJAYARAJA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these cases, the petitioners successfully passed the written examination and also qualified in the physical test. Thereafter, they were informed that their applications were rejected on the ground that they suppressed their involvement in the criminal cases in their applications as well as in the verification roll and therefore, they were not selected for Grade II Police Constable and the same is challenged in these writ petitions.

(2.) THE learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that though in the Full Bench judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97, in the matter of Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and 4 others, the Hon'ble Full Bench held that as per Explanation 1 to Clause (iv) of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service and the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either of his involvement in a criminal case or 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 ultimate outcome of the criminal case, having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2011(3) SCALE 606 : (2011)4 MLJ 1006(SC) in the matter of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, 2011(6) CTC 440 (SC), in the matter of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P & others and in the judgment reported in (2012)7 MLJ 68(SC) in the matter of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Tr.Prinl. Section Home and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the issue, whether a person can be disqualified on the ground of suppression of particulars in the application form or in the verification roll in the matter of appointment to the Larger Bench, the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of our High Court reported in 2008(2) CTC 97, in the matter of Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and 4 others, should not be taken into consideration for rejecting the application and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Grade II Police Constable is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) MR .T.S.Mohammed Mohidheen, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that law has been finally laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 2008(2) CTC 97(supra) and the Hon'ble Full Bench, after considering all the earlier judgments, including the judgments reported in 1996(II)LLJ 703 (SC) in the matter of Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & another, 2007(12) SCALE 539 in the matter of R.Radhakrishnan, vs. The Director General of Police and after considering the provisions of Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 held that even though, a person was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in a criminal case, he can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police force and the failure of that person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or 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 ultimate outcome of the criminal case and therefore, even though the petitioners were honourably acquitted by this court, having regard to the suppression of involvement in the criminal case, the rejection of their application is valid as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this court.