The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Mylapore Vs. J. Raghunees - (Supreme Court) (20 Oct 2023)
Candidate is obliged to give correct information as to conviction, acquittal or arrest or pendency of criminal case and there should be no suppression
The Director General of Police, has preferred present appeal against the final judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing writ appeal filed by the Respondent. The issue which has given rise to present appeal is that whether the Respondent is guilty of suppression of material fact with regard to his involvement in the criminal case so as to disentitle him to employment.
The Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 provides for the eligibility criteria for the recruitment and appointment in the State Police Service. Itprovides 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. 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 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.
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.
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 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. The judgment and order of the Division Bench passed in writ appeal cannot be sustained in law and is set aside restoring that of the writ court. Appeal allowed.
Tags : EMPLOYMENT CRIMINAL CASE INVOLVEMENT