WP/29624/2022 of P. Sivakandan Vs The Director General of Police on 25 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quashing the impugned order passed by the second respondent in C.No.A2/10200/2019, dated 23.03.2020, and consequently, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are the petitioner had applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable on 02.04.2019 and successfully participated in the selection process. After clearing all the stages of selection, while he was awaiting the appointment order, he was served with the impugned order dated 23.03.2020, informing him that he was not eligible for recruitment on the ground that his character and antecedents were not satisfactory.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable and, after completing all the tests and becoming qualified for appointment, he was directed to submit a verification roll. Accordingly, he submitted the verification roll, stating that he had no criminal antecedents and that no punishment had been imposed against him. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that, though the said verification roll was submitted on 10.09.2019, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the basis of the FIR dated 19.04.2019 was made without considering the petitioner’s innocence regarding the pendency of the said FIR. To substantiate the same, he would rely upon the FIR and submit that the petitioner’s name does not find a place therein.

4.1. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that, after coming to know about his rejection through the impugned order dated 23.03.2020, the petitioner moved a bail application on 15.02.2020. But, even the said bail application was returned on the ground that there was no accused by the name of P.Sivakandan. Only thereafter, by way of a further statement dated 16.12.2020, the petitioner was implicated as an accused, and he subsequently obtained anticipatory bail. It is the submission of the petitioner that, in the absence of his name in the FIR, the verification roll submitted by him cannot be faulted with.

4.2. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that, when the petitioner had voluntarily filed a bail application in respect of the concerned crime number, the same was returned by the Court on the ground that the petitioner was not shown as an accused, and therefore, expecting the petitioner to disclose the pendency of the criminal case in the verification roll would be illogical. It was also his contention that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case, which was subsequently vindicated by the return of the bail application. Therefore, he would contend that the answer furnished in the verification roll cannot be construed as suppression of facts. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2024 INSC 131. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and would contend that, according to the FIR, the name of one Balu finds a place therein and that Balu is the nickname of the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not an accused at the time of registration of the FIR dated 19.04.2019 is erroneous. He would further contend that, notwithstanding the petitioner’s defence that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the criminal case, the respondent Police have now come to know of the pendency of the case against the petitioner. Therefore, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was no suppression of the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner’s involvement in a criminal offence itself would constitute a ground for rejecting his selection, as such appointment would be in violation of Rule 14(2)(b)(vi) and Explanation (i)(2) of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, 1978. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly placed reliance on the contention that the answers furnished to Columns 15 and 16 of the verification roll cannot be construed as suppression of facts. To some extent, this Court is in agreement with the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel. However, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case. According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word “involved” is defined as follows:- “Taking part in something; being part of something or connected with something.”

8. Therefore, what is essential to be considered is whether the petitioner was connected with or concerned in respect of such an offence. Involvement does not necessarily mean that the person should have actually been the assailant. According to Rule 14(2)(b)(iv) and Explanation (1)(2) of the Special

Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services, 1978, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service if he is involved in any criminal case. Further, an acquittal based on the evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be construed as an honourable acquittal.

9. As already stated, though the petitioner was not aware of his involvement on the date of submission of the verification roll, it has now become an admitted fact that he was involved in Crime No.135 of 2019, which was subsequently taken on file as S.C.No.2 of 2021 before the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Villupuram. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was acquitted in the said case. However, according to the relevant Rule, if the acquittal is based on the hostile evidence of the complainant, such acquittal would not make the person eligible for consideration for appointment. In the present case, the complainant, namely, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, turned hostile, and, based on the same, the petitioner was acquitted.

10. Before we delve into the further merits of the case, it is appropriate to trace the settled legal principles in regard to the appointment of a Police Constable. The Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai, reported (2008) 2 CTC 97, has upheld the Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Service Rule, and has further held that if the applicant failed to disclose the involvement of the criminal case at the earliest point of time, his letter disclosure cannot were such material irregularity.

11. After the Manikandan's case (cited supra), the larger Bench of this Court consisting of 5 Hon'ble Judges in J.Alex Ponseelan vs. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, reported in 2014(2) CTC 337, upheld Full Bench decision in Manikandan's case (cited supra) as the judgment of Manikandan case was confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as a concomitant the order of the Full Bench got merged with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the larger Bench has affirmed and reiterated the Full Bench decision in respect of the intra-vires of the police Rule.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2018(8) SCC 471(3J), has held that furnishing of wrong and incorrect information will be construed as disqualification. In yet another judgment of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others vs. Pradeep Kumar and Another, reported in 2018(1) SCC 797(2.J), has held that the acquittal is not conclusive criteria to assess the suitability of candidate unless it is honourable acquittal, and further held that the employer has got liberty to go into the issue of suitability.

13. In the judgment in Commissioner of Police vs. Rjkumar reported in 2021(8) SCC 347(2J), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court in exercise of Judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of candidate. It further held that, in the absence of malice or non application of mind or illegality, intense scrutiny to adjudge suitability of candidate, renders Court's decision suspect to charge of trespass into executive power of determining the suitability of candidate. It further held that, the judicial review is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable and are applied fairly in non- discriminatory manner.

14. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in an un reported judgment P.S.Selva Vinoth vs. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters, Chennai, an held in W.A.No.636 of 2022 vide order dated 30.06.2022, has reiterated that the nondisclosure of the information about the pending criminal case is fatal.

15. In the recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2023(7)SCC 536, has held that in the assessment of suitability of candidates the Court has to exercise his discretionary power sparingly in (i)Exceptional and special circumstances;

(ii) Where substantial and grave injustice has been occasioned; and (iii)Where case presents features of sufficient gravity warranting interference. It further held the discretionary decision of the administrative authority can only be reviewed by the Court on a limited ground, such as bad faith of decision makers, exercise of discretion for improper purpose, application of irrelevant considerations, and unreasonableness. It has further cautioned that the intention of legislature in conferring discretionary powers on administrative authorities should not be lightly interfered with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after tracing various precedents, have ultimately summarized the gist of the principles in Para No. 93. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereunder: “93.In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:

93.1. Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials– more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security. [See Raj Kumar]

93.2. Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.

93.3. The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.

93.4. The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders’ conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.

93.5. The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.

93.6. Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?

93.7. Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?”

16. It is also relevant to refer yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Bhupendra Yadav, reported in 2023 SCC online SC1181, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the settled principles that, when a person ultimately acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, he become unsuitable for appointment to the post of Constable.

17. From the above all precedents, we could safely assume that the Court are consistent to the effect that the mere acquittal of a person from criminal case will not give any unfettered right to seek an appointment as a matter of right. In the present case, the issue is not confined merely to the suppression of the pendency of a criminal case. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was no suppression of the pendency of the criminal case, the subsequent revelation of the petitioner’s involvement in a serious criminal case involving an offence against a member of a Scheduled Caste community has come to light. It is not a case of sudden resurrection, as the criminal case had been pending since 2019, even prior to the submission of the verification roll, though the petitioner may not have been aware of the same. However, his involvement in the said case has become an admitted fact, which, according to the respondents, renders him unsuitable for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable.

18. In Ravindra Kumar’s case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court endorsed the view taken in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532, and Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 696. By relying upon paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that mere suppression of materials/ false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service. It was also held that when an employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our Country, there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny the appointment in judicial service. But here the case is not mere suppression, but something more.

19. In view of the aforesaid settled legal principles, this Court is of the firm view that the appointing authority has already considered the suitability of the petitioner and that the relevant Rules prescribe the manner in which such suitability is to be assessed. Therefore, the question of this Court second guessing the decision of suitability arrived at by the competent authority does not arise, as the same would be contrary to the settled legal principles. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the present Writ Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 25-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

To

1. The Director General of Police Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 04.

2. The Superintendent of Police The District Police office, Villupuram District, Villupuram 605 602.

3. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old COP Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 08.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 29624 of 2022 25-09-2026