AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice T. Raja
The Petitioner E. Nazar has filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the order of the Respondent herein passed in his C. No. D4/16567/2004,B.O. No. 880/2004 dated 10.12.2004 and quash the same
and direct the Respondent herein to reinstate the Petitioner inservice with all consequential monetary and service benefits.
Mr. Ravi Shanmugam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, briefly narrated the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition which are as
under:
(i) The Petitioner, E. Nazar was appointed as Grade IIPolice Constable by the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalionon 13.11.2003. After his
appointment, he joined duty on30.11.2003. But in the order of appointment the only condition imposed was that if his services were found
unsatisfactory, he would be removed from service.Unfortunately, when the Petitioner was studying in his school, on 20.7.1999 due to some land
dispute between the petitioner''s father and his brother, an F.I.R., was registered in Crime No. 316/1999 against the Petitioner and his father
showing the Petitioner as A4. But, the petitioner was not having any knowledge as he was studying in school at the relevant point of time. Further,
since he joined duty on 30.11.2003, on coming to know the pendency of the Criminal Case, on 19.5.2004, as a duty bound police trainee, by a
written representation he represented to the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram about the pendency of the false case registered
against him. On receipt of the said representation disclosing the pendency of the Criminal Case, the Petitioner was also allowed to complete his
training. In the meanwhile, the Criminal Case was also ripen for hearing before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvallore and the Judicial
Magistrate-II after hearing of the entire case, finding no support to the complaint, dismissed the Criminal Case and acquitted the petitioner. Since
the representation given by the petitioner on 19.5.2004 before the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram has indicated that he has
already represented that a false case has been foisted against him, in view of the dismissal of the Criminal Case, the Respondent ought not to have
issued any show cause notice. However, after completion of his training, on29.11.2004 a show cause notice was issued to him by the
Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police II Battalion, alleging that the Petitioner failed to disclose the pending Criminal Case against him. Since the
allegation mentioned in the show cause notice was incorrect, the Petitioner alsosubmitted his detailed explanation stating clearly that during the
course of training the pendency of false Criminal Case was rightly brought to the notice of the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram
on19.5.2004, for the reason that he was not aware of the registration of the F.I.R. in Crime No. 316/99. Even after the receipt of the
representation made by the Petitioner tothe Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram on19.5.2004, the Respondent also allowed the
Petitioner to complete his training. Only thereafter the Petitioner successfully completed his training. Therefore, the question of failure on the part of
the Petitioner to disclose about the Criminal Case is neither justified no racceptable. However, ignoring the explanation given by the petitioner to
the show cause notice, the Respondent passed the final order terminating the service of the Petitioner on 10.12.2004 and discharged him from
service with immediate effect.
(ii) The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner at the time of registration of F.I.R. in Crime No. 316/99 on 20.7.99
was admittedly studying in a school. But for the fact that the petitioner''s father and his brother had a land dispute, only the Petitioner''s own
paternal uncle had given a false case against the Petitioner and his father under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 323 Indian Penal Code. Since the
registration of the F.I.R. was not known to the Petitioner as he was not matured enough to follow up the out come of the land dispute took place
between his father and his paternal uncle, the Petitioner, though at the relevant point of time, was unaware of the registration of F.I.R., however,
when the case was taken up for trial after his appointment when he was undergoing training on 19.5.2004, during his police training on coming to
know there has been a false Criminal Case lodged by his paternal uncle was pending against the him and his father, properly brought to the notice
of the Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram. Therefore, the question of non-disclosure or deliberate concealment of the pendency of
the Criminal Case cannot be put against the Petitioner.
(iii) The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also argued that the Criminal Case has been made against the petitioner and his father only by his
father''s own brother in respect of a land dispute and not by any other person in respect of a land dispute. However, even that Criminal Case also
came to be dismissed acquitting both the petitioner and his father for the reason that the brother of the Petitioner''s father has not come forward to
say anything against the Petitioner''s family. That also shows that it was totally a false case. Therefore, the Respondent should not have issued the
show cause notice calling upon the Petitioner with an allegation that he has deliberately failed to disclose the pendency of the Criminal case before
the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvallore. When the Criminal case itself came to be dismissed, the Respondent has no basis or foundation to proceed
against the Petitioner.
(iv) In support of the abovementioned submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in Commr. of
Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, and Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India and Others, for a proposition that in the matter for appointment,
condo nation of minor indiscretions of youths has to be more leniently taken in favor of the appointees. He also relied on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Another Vs. Dhaval Singh, for the proposition that the cancellation of the candidature under
the circumstances was without any proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant material.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent submits that the non-disclosure of the pendency of the
Criminal Case against the petitioner at the time of submitting his application has to be viewed very seriously.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties.
(i) In Commr. of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, , the Apex Court while dealing with the similar issue, after coming to know that the
Respondent, namely Sander Kumar, has wrongly made a ''No'' remark in the column where he was asked to disclose whether he was arrested,
prosecuted, kept underdetention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of lawfor any offence, debarred/disqualified by any PublicService
Commission from appearing any examination,rusticated by any university or any other educationauthority/institution, however by taking note of the
factthat since the case was admittedly compromised and on thebasis of the compromise, the family members of therespondent were acquitted, the
Apex Court has held thatwhen the incident happened, the Respondent must have beenabout 20 years ago. At that age young people often
commitindiscretions, and such indiscretions can often becondoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are notexpected to behave in as mature a
manner as older people.Hence, our approach should be to condone minorindiscretions made by young people rather than to brandthem as
criminals for the rest of their lives. Paragraphs8, 9, 12 and 13 of the said judgment are extractedhereunder:
We respectfully agree with the Delhi HighCourt that the cancellation of his candidature wasillegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in
thematter. When the incident happened the Respondentmust have been about 20 years of age. At that ageyoung people often commit indiscretions,
and suchindiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youthwill be youth. They are not expected to behave in asmature a manner as older people.
Hence, our approachshould be to condone minor indiscretions made by youngpeople rather than to brand them as criminals for therest of their
lives.
In this connection, we may refer to thecharacter ""Jean Valjean"" in Victor Hugo''s novel LesMiserables, in which for committing a minor offence
ofstealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family JeanValjean was branded as a thief for his whole life.The modern approach should be to reform a
personinstead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
It is true that in the application from therespondent did not mention that he was involved in acriminal case under Sections 325/34 Indian Penal
Code. Probably hedid not mention this out of fear that if he did so hewould automatically be disqualified. At any event, itwas not such a serious
offence like murder, dacoity orrape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken inthe matter.
For the reasons given above, this appeal hasno force and it is dismissed. No costs.
(ii) In yet another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India and Others, in para 12 it has been held as under:
The fact that the Appellant was involved in acriminal case is not disputed by the Appellant. Whatis contended by him is that he was
ultimatelyacquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,Agra and, involvement of the Appellant in a criminalcase could not have been made
the basis forterminating his services. Since the Appellant wasacquitted, and it was a clean acquittal, the stigmaattached to him of having been
prosecuted in acriminal case should have been treated to havedisappeared and no argument can be allowed to beraised for justifying the order of
dismissal on theground of the Appellant''s involvement in a criminalcase.
(iii) In Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Another Vs. Dhaval Singh, also the principle mentioned in the aforementioned two judgments is restated.
However, it is useful to borrow para 5 of the said judgment.
That there was an omission on the part of therespondent to give information against the relevantcolumn in the Application Form about the
pendency ofthe criminal case, is not in dispute. The Respondent,however, voluntarily conveyed it on 15.11.1995 to theappellant that he has
inadvertently failed to mentionin the appropriate column regarding the pendency ofthe criminal case against him and that his letter maybe treated as
information"". Despite receipt of thiscommunication, the candidature of the Respondent wascancelled. A perusal of the order of the
DeputyCommissioner of Police cancelling the candidature on20.11.1995 shows that the information conveyed by therespondent on 15-11-1995
was not taken note of. Itwas obligatory on the part of the Appellant to haveconsidered that application and apply its mind to thestand of the
Respondent that he had made aninadvertent mistake before passing the order. That,however, was not done. It is not as if informationwas given by
the Respondent regarding the inadvertentmistake committed by him after he had been acquittedby the trial court-it was much before that. It isalso
obvious that the information was conveyedvoluntarily. In vain, have we searched through theorder of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and
theother record for any observation relating to theinformation conveyed by the Respondent on 15.11.1995and whether that application could not
be treated ascuring the defect which had occurred in the Form. We are not told as to how that communication was disposedof either. Did the
competent authority ever have alook at it, before passing the order of cancellationof candidature? The cancellation of the candidatureunder the
circumstances was without any properapplication of mind and without taking intoconsideration all relevant material. The Tribunal,therefore, rightly
set it aside. We uphold the orderof the Tribunal, though, for slightly differentreasons, as mentioned above.
A reading of the said judgment clearly shows that in thepresent case even though at the time of registration of F.I.R. in Crime No. 316/99 on
20.7.99 made against thepetitioner and his father, the Petitioner was admittedlystudying in a school, subsequently, when the Petitioner hadapplied
for selection to the post of Grade II PoliceConstable, he failed to mention about the pendency of theCriminal Case. After completion of his studies,
he wasselected and appointed as Grade II Police Constable byorder dated 13.11.2003 in the Tamil Nadu Special PoliceBattalion and joined duty
on 30.11.2003. Subsequently,when he was sent for police training on 19.5.2004, thepetitioner on coming to know that a false case registeredby
his paternal uncle against him and his father was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II,Tiruvallore, in C.C. No. 11/2000 has brought to
the notice ofthe Principal, Police Training School, Kancheepuram in hisrepresentation dated 19.5.2004. This itself shows that thepetitioner
immediately on coming to know the pendency ofthe criminal case thought fit to bring it to the notice ofthe Respondent and accordingly, he has also
brought thesame to the notice of the Respondent by his representationdated 19.5.2004. This conduct clearly shows that thepetitioner never had
any intention to conceal it.
(iv) The second part of the case also deservesconsideration. Even though there was a criminal case filedon 20.7.1999, this was made only by the
Paternal uncleagainst the Petitioner and his father for a tiny issuerelating to land dispute. Therefore, subsequently, thecomplainant, namely, the
Petitioner''s paternal uncle alsodid not come to the court to substantiate his case beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tiruvallore andfinally,
the matter was also dismissed. This also showsthat his paternal uncle had foisted a false case, that too,on a very trivial issue.
(v) In view of that, as already held by the ApexCourt in the case of Commissioner of Police Delhi and Anr. v. Dhaval Singh that when a candidate
forappointment instead of putting a cross-mark in the columnin which he was required to furnish information about thependency of criminal case, if
any against him, failed tofurnish such information, it was held in the abovementionedjudgment that though there was an omission on the part ofthe
Petitioner to give information against the relevantcolumn about the pendency of the Criminal Case,subsequently when he voluntarily conveyed the
same to therespondent relating to the pendency of the criminal caseagainst him, the cancellation of the candidature by therespondent even after the
dismissal of the Criminal Case,is not only unjustified but also unfair. Applying theabove observation, if I look at the contention raised bythe learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for therespondent that the non-disclosure of the pendency of theCriminal Case against the Petitioner at
the time ofsubmitting his application has to be viewed very seriously,the same does not find any substance.
That apart for other reasons, as I have mentioned above that the Petitioner was a student studying in aschool and he cannot be expected to
know what had happenedafter a small fight said to have taken place between hisfather and paternal uncle, but, however, the very fact thatthe
Petitioner during the training period itself hasbrought to the notice of the Respondent on 19.5.2004 aboutthe pendency of the Criminal Case,
clearly shows that thepetitioner immediately after coming to know about thependency of the Criminal Case brought it to the notice ofthe
Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent, even withoutlooking into the fact whether the criminal case wasdismissed in his favour or not, has wrongly
terminated thepetitioner. Therefore, the order of cancellation andtermination of appointment after the Petitioner wasacquitted in the Criminal case is
liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order challenged in thepresent writ petition is set aside and the writ petition isallowed. Resultantly, the Respondent is
directed toreinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential,monetary and service benefits within a period of two monthsfrom the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.