Director General of Police and Another vs Ephtha

K.N. Basha, J.—This appeal is preferred by the appellants, challenging the order of the Writ Court dated 2.2.2011, made in W.P. (MD)

No. 1370 of 2009, allowing the writ petition of the respondent/writ petitioner and set aside the order passed by the first appellant herein dated

29.5.2008. Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the respondent/writ petitioner faced a

criminal trial and as such he cannot be included in the police force as per Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the respondent was a juvenile at the time when he was implicated in the

criminal case and he was acquitted in the criminal case as per the judgment dated 13.7.2005 in Juvenile Case No. 4 of 2005 passed by the

Principal Judicial Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli. It is further contended that the said acquittal order was passed even prior to the

submission of the application for the post of Grade II Police Constable.

We have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the entire materials available on record, including the impugned

order passed by the Writ Court.

It is not disputed that even prior to the submission of the application for the post of Grade II Police Constable by the respondent/writ petitioner,

the respondent has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. Such being the admitted factual position, there is no justification for disqualifying

the respondent/writ petitioner for the post of Grade II Police Constable.

As far as Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present

case and the said rule is in respect of suppression of the material fact. In the instant case, the petitioner was a juvenile, when he was implicated in

the criminal case and he was acquitted in the criminal case, even prior to the application. As such, there is no question of suppression of facts

regarding his implication in the criminal case at all.

The Writ Court also rightly considered those aspects in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan and Others Vs.

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, of its order, which is as under:

The Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan and Others Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, had

gone into the question with regard to the validity of the amended Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules and

answered the reference by holding that the said rule is not ultra vires or unconstitutional and a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in

criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State. However, the application of Section 19 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was not an issue before the Hon''ble Full Bench and consequently, there was no

finding given in respect of Section 19 of the said Act. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner had

stated as ''No'' to a question as to whether the petitioner had ever been concerned in any criminal case, the same cannot be taken as a deliberate

suppression of vital information.

The Writ Court further placed reliance on similar matters, which are as under:-

The issue involved in this case was already considered by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 3130 of 2009 dated 20.9.2010. wherein the learned

Judge by placing reliance on the order passed in W.P. No. 315 of 2008 dated 28.1.2008 in G. Pandiarajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and

others, allowed the writ petition by holding that the petitioner therein had not suppressed the vital information which would disqualify employment.

In that case also, the petitioner therein had answered in negative for a query as to whether he had ever been arrested or convicted or sentenced to

undergo impression or pay of fine in any criminal case or other offence. The paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said order made in W.P. No. 3130 of 2009

dated 20.9.2010 are extracted hereunder:

The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon an unreported decision of this Court dated 28.1.2008, passed in W.P. No. 315

of 2008, (G. Pandiarajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and 3 others). In that case, this Court went into the identical contention and held that Section

19 of the Act only protects the juvenile and any stigma attached to said conviction is also removed. The learned counsel also submitted that the

proceedings of the Juvenile Justice Board are kept confidential as mandated u/s 21 of the Act. It is also submitted that the purpose of the Act is to

reform ""a juvenile in conflict with law"". Therefore, the respondents ought not to have disqualified the petitioner. He has also submitted that any

conflict between the Central law and the State law, the Central Law would prevail. It is unnecessary to deal with the said submission, since there is

no conflict between the State Law and the Central Law. In view of the declaration u/s 19 of the Act, even if there is any conviction, the

disqualification is removed, since the proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act is by a special enactment and the person, who is tried under the

Act. even has committed a crime, he is described as ""juvenile in conflict with law"". The purpose of the Act is to reform a juvenile. The stand taken

by the respondents cannot be countenanced. The negative answers given by the petitioner as against question Nos. 15, 16 and 18 cannot be said

to be deliberately made by suppressing vital information.

If any information had to be furnished, but not furnished or a wrong information is furnished on mistaken impression, a candidate can be given

the benefit of doubt for furnishing such information. The Supreme Court dealt with a case of a person who did not disclose his arrest in the

attestation form when he went for selection. On finding the antecedent and his character, it was found that there was a non-disclosure. The defence

taken by the person was that there was a bail order granted and therefore, he was under the bona fide impression, but there was no arrest. The

Supreme Court, vide its judgment in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Dinesh Kumar, had observed as follows:-

In our view, the reasoning given in Dinesh Kumar''s case in that context is a possible view and does not call for interference under Article 136

of the Constitution. Conversely, the decision rendered in the writ petitions filed by Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder has to be reversed to be in line with

the decision in Dinesh Kumar''s case. When the question as to what constitutes ""arrest"" has for long engaged the attention of different High Courts

as also this Court, it may not be altogether unreasonable to expect a layman to construe that he had never been arrested on his appearing before

the Court and being granted bail immediately. The position would have been different, had the person concerned not been released on bail. We

would, in the facts of these cases, give the benefit of a mistaken impression, rather than that of deliberate and wilful misrepresentation and

concealment of facts, to the appellants in the second of the two appeals as well, while affirming the view taken by the High Court in Dinesh

Kumar''s case.

...

In the result, the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1840 of 2007 is dismissed, while the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14939 of

2007 is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 22.9.2005, impugned in the said appeal, is set aside and the respondents concerned are

directed to take steps to issue appointment letters to the appellants in the said appeals subject to fulfillment of other conditions by them. It is also

made clear that the appellants will be deemed to have been appointed as Constable-Drivers with effect from the date persons lower in merit to

them were appointed. However, while they will be entitled to the notional benefits of such continuous appointment, they will be entitled to salary

only from the date of this judgment on the basis of such notional benefits.

In view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioner had suppressed a vital information, which will disqualify him from getting the

employment. Therefore, reliance placed upon in Manikandan and Others Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

may not be apposite. On the contrary, the dictum laid down therein can easily be distinguished under the facts and circumstances of the present

case.

In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The miscellaneous petitions stand closed as infructuous. The respondents are directed

to comply with the order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs.

It is relevant to state that even assuming that the respondent/writ petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case as a juvenile, the said fact

cannot be considered to be disqualification as per Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. In view of the

aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2013 is dismissed.