Full Judgment Text
CA NO. 1183 OF 2012
NON-REPORTABLE
2023 INSC 944
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
petition.
Date: 2023.10.20
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.
1
14. In Avtar Singh 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
(iii)
employee. 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