Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Case Is Not Suppression If Candidate Had No Knowledge Of It, & Was Ultimately Exonerated: Madras High Court

Background Facts

A recruitment notification was issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner candidate appeared for the written examination and was successful. He was called for certificate verification. Then for physical measurement tests, endurance tests, physical efficiency tests and viva voce. He was successful in all of them. However, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he had suppressed his involvement in a criminal case.

The criminal case was registered on the file of Dhalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District, while filing his application. The candidate challenged it before the writ Court. The writ Court allowed the writ petition.

Aggrieved by the same, the department filed a writ appeal before the Madras High Court.

It was argued by the department that uniformed service is a disciplined force. Therefore, the candidates aspiring for recruitment should have a clean service record. They should not have suppressed any material fact. The candidate was implicated in a criminal case. He suppressed to mention the same in his application.

It was argued that the candidate stated those criminal details in his representation only after his name was deleted from the final report. Therefore, the department rejected his candidature on the ground of suppression of the pendency of the criminal case.

On the other hand, it was argued by the Candidate that the FIR was registered on 03 March 2022, till the date when he submitted his application on 02 April 2022. However, he was not aware of the registration of a criminal case against him. Later, he learnt that the criminal case was filed by a woman claiming that she was cheated by the brother of the candidate.

The criminal case was registered against the brother of the candidate, as well as against his parents and his siblings. The investigation officer completed the investigation and filed a final report on 29 April 2022. The candidate was exonerated from the charges in final report. It was further argued that the candidate was staying at Chennai and preparing for his exams, therefore, he had no knowledge about the registration of the criminal case against him.

It was contended that the candidate never had any knowledge about the criminal case at the relevant point of time, therefore, his non-mentioning of it in his application will not amount to suppression.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Division Bench that the standard expected of a person intended to serve in the uniformed service is different. Therefore, the candidate seeking employment in the police force should be honest, trustworthy and his integrity should be above board.

The judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others was relied upon wherein it was held that the appointing authority shall take a decision only after considering the seriousness of the crime. It was further held that before a person is held guilty of suppression of information or giving false information, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.

It was observed by the court that the department had not considered the seriousness of the case. It had rejected the candidature on the sole premise that he had suppressed the pendency of a criminal case. The department was conscious that the implication of the candidate in the criminal case was found to be false by the investigating agency. Further that the candidate was exonerated in final report.

It was further observed that the department had failed to establish that the candidtae had knowledge from the circumstances that he was implicated in the criminal case.

Further, the judgment in Shatrughn Yadav v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) and others was relied upon wherein it was held that the order of termination must not be mechanical but it should have regard to the form of suppression, the outcome of the criminal case, the nature of the employment and of the offence. It was further held that termination is not an automatic consequence of the disclosure of criminal antecedents.

It was further noted that the candidate was not shown to have knowledge of the registration of a criminal case against him on the date when he filed his application. Therefore, there was no justification on the part of the department to reject his candidature.

It was held by the Division Bench that a criminal case may commence with the registration of an FIR on the basis of an allegation, but the registration of an FIR by itself cannot be treated as proof of guilt or as a conclusive determination of the character and suitability of the person against whom such allegation is made. In many cases, where the allegations are subsequently found to be false, exaggerated, motivated, the accused may ultimately be exonerated, discharged or acquitted.

It was further held that recruitment notifications, character verification and employment procedures, even in the private sector, may treat the mere pendency of a criminal case as an impediment, thereby preventing a young person from securing employment at the very stage of life when he is seeking to establish himself and support his family.

It was held by the Bench that the objective should not be merely to determine whether a person is technically involved in a pending criminal case, but to ensure that a young citizen who has not been found guilty is given a fair opportunity to build his life and participate meaningfully in society. The law must protect the legitimate interests of public administration while simultaneously preventing the criminal process, particularly a prolonged or ultimately unfounded criminal proceeding, from becoming an instrument that permanently destroys the career, livelihood and future prospects of the youth.

It was concluded by the Division Bench that there was no suppression of any material fact by the Candidate.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the department was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board v. P.Manikandan

Case No. : W.A(MD)No.2011 of 2023

Counsel for the Appellants : B.Saravanan, AAG III assisted by M.Mahaboob Athiff, SGP

Counsel for the Respondent : M.Pozhilan for M/s.C.Arulvadivel Associates