S.R.SUJITH 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 counsel 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.) SOME of the petitioners counsel also submitted that some petitioners were not involved in the cases and their names were initially included in the FIR and thereafter, their names were omitted while filing charge sheet and therefore, those persons cannot be said to be involved in the criminal cases and therefore, the rejection of those persons cannot be amount to suppression of material facts.