V. Venkatachallam vs Union of India

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—The petitioner in W.P. No. 3820 of 2013 has filed this review application to review the order dated 24.10.2013. The said writ petition was preferred against the dismissal of O.A. No. 1511 of 2010, vide order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench.

A perusal of the materials available on record, would disclose that the petitioner appeared in the trade test for the recruitment to the post of Fitter (Semi Skilled) in Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi and he had also passed the test and was selected and his name was included in the select panel. The petitioner had also completed two years training and fresh test was conducted on 6.2.2009 and however, his name was ordered to be removed from the selection panel and aggrieved by the same, he submitted a representation dated 6.8.2009, which was rejected on 11.6.2010 and challenging the same, he filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It was the stand of the official respondents that the petitioner in his application dated 30.1.2009 has not disclosed his involvement in a criminal case in Column No. 12 of the application form and in fact, the petitioner has specifically stated that he has never been prosecuted in any criminal case, though a criminal case was registered against him. In Column No. 12 (i), the petitioner has stated that no case is pending against him in a Court of law. It is the further stand of the official respondents that the petitioner was arrayed as accused in M.C. No. 169 of 2009 (Crime No. 108 of 2009) on the file of T8 Muthaputhurpet Police Station for the commission of offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC and the case came to be registered based on a complaint lodged against him on 3.6.2008 and the case was also pending on the date when the application was submitted by the petitioner on 30.1.2009.

The respondents after finding out the said antecedents, and after hearing, ordered removal of the petitioner''s name from the selection panel. The Division Bench of this Court (in which one of us NPVJ is a member) has taken into consideration the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, and in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh, , it has been held that the disclosure of involvement in a criminal case in application/attestation form is an essential requirement, as honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of the police force. It has been further held in the latter decision reported in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh, , involvement in a criminal case even if it is ended in acquittal, the candidate is not entitled to get selection based on the suppression of facts.

Mr. G.Justin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the decision reported in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, , has referred the question of suppression of criminal case in the application form to a larger Bench and till date, the decision is awaited and therefore, prayed for admission of the review petition and ordering of notice.

In the considered opinion of the Court, the said submission lacks merit and substance for the reason that till the larger Bench decides one way or other, the judgment referred to above in the impugned judgment, which is in operation and having a binding precedent of this Court, has correctly held that since the petitioner has suppressed the registration and pending of the criminal case, his name has been rightly stuck off by the selection panel. It is also a well settled position of law that the review application cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and on that ground also, the review petition deserves to be rejected. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that the petitioner herein was acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tiruvallur in M.C. No. 169 of 2009. A perusal of the order would disclose that the petitioner was awarded the benefit of doubt and it is also not the case of the honourable acquittal.

In the result, the review application is dismissed in the admission stage itself. No costs.