Non-disclosure of a long-closed matrimonial-dispute FIR did not justify rejecting police candidature.

The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, applied for appointment as a Grade-II Police Constable and proceeded through the selection process to provisional selection.

In 2016, his wife lodged a complaint that resulted in registration of an FIR under Sections 294(b), 406, 498A and 506(1) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioner stated that action in the case was dropped and that the marriage later ended in divorce by mutual consent.

In his 2023 application, he answered “No” to the question about criminal cases, stating that no case was then pending and that he believed a closed case need not be disclosed.

The third respondent rejected his candidature for non-disclosure; the petitioner challenged that decision and sought appointment.

Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules governs the eligibility of candidates with criminal-case histories and was considered alongside the principles in Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu v. K. Indhu Kumar, W.A.(MD) No. 938 of 2020.

Indhu Kumar recognises that, in cases involving petty or trivial matters, including family disputes, an employer may exercise discretion to consider a candidate’s character and antecedents despite non-disclosure; it also identifies offences against women or children as ordinarily not trivial.

The judgment also records the Full Bench proposition in Manikandan v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board that failure to disclose involvement in a criminal case may be fatal.

The petitioner cited Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, for the principle that an employer may consider special circumstances when deciding the consequences of false or suppressed information.

The Court found that the FIR arose from matrimonial discord, that action in it had been dropped, and that the parties subsequently obtained a divorce by mutual consent.

It treated the case as trivial in the circumstances and applied Indhu Kumar’s allowance for discretionary consideration of non-disclosure in trivial cases.

The Court further reasoned that no case was pending when the petitioner submitted his application and that the case had been closed at least seven years earlier; accordingly, it concluded that the omission did not amount to suppression warranting rejection.

It did not order immediate appointment.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.