Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police vs G.Vignesh on 23 March, 2026
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 04.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.1039 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8182 of 2023
1.The Director General of Police
State of Tamil Nadu,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 4.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Pandiyan Salai, Elambur,
Chennai – 8.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
North, Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
.... Appellants/respondents
Vs.
G.Vignesh ....Respondent/Writ Petitioner
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
PRAYER : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.13097 of 2022, dated
26.08.2022.
For Appellants : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.S.Vinodh
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.R.Murali
for Mr.M.Sureshkumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.)
This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order passed in
W.P.(MD)No.13097 of 2022, dated 26.08.2022 and prayed to set aside
the same.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for
the post of Grade-II Police Constable (Armed Reserve, Tamil Nadu
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
Special Force) Jail Warden and Firemen in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed
Services Recruitment for the year 2020. He passed the written
examination and other examination. During verification of his previous
antecedent, it was found that he was involved in 2 crime numbers.
1) Crime No.996 of 2017 dated 17.07.2017 lodged in which the
petitioner has was arrayed as A3 for the offences under Sections 294(b),
323, 324, 506(ii) IPC on the file of Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy and
2) Crime No.787 of 2015 was also registered against him for the offence
under Sections 294(b), 323 IPC on 21.12.2015 in which the petitioner
was arrayed as A1 on the file of Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy. The
office of the Commissioner of Police, vide letter in
Na.Ka.No.A2/28885/2021 dated 12.01.2022 informed the petitioner that
though he was acquitted in Crime No.996 of 2017 under Sections 294(b),
323, 324, 506(ii) IPC, the acquittal was only on the ground of benefit of
doubt under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The judgment was rendered only on
18.06.2019. As per the Rule 14(b) (1) of Tamil Nadu Special Police
Subordinate Rules, a person should not involved in any criminal activity
and his antecedents should be satisfied. As per the said Rule 14(b)
explanation (1) a person who is acquitted on benefit of doubt or due to
3/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person
involved in a criminal case. Therefore, since his antecedent were not
found satisfactory, he was not appointed.
2.1. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a writ petition in W.P.
(MD)No.13097 of 2022, before the Court which the learned Single Judge
allowed the petition, in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 are as follows :
8. In the light of the above observations, the facts
involved in the present case was looked into. Admittedly,
the petitioner herein was acquitted in the criminal case
registered against him. The petitioner herein had
disclosed the registration of this complaint both in his
application as well as during the time of police
verification. As such, there is no suppression of facts from
his side.
9. Under Clause 7(b) and 8(i) of the guidelines
(supra), the candidates, who are acquitted honourably,
were considered for appointment to the post of SI of
Police/Grade II Police Constables on earlier occasions.
The guidelines of the Director General of Police was laid
down as a yardstick for the selection of the candidates, in
addition to the disqualifications referred to under the
notification, as well as the relevant rules. In other words,
4/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
the aforesaid exception has been carved out from the
disqualifications prescribed under the notification, as well
as the Rules. Since the involvement of the candidate for
any offence, who was acquitted honourably, was
considered to be an exception, in view of the proceedings
of the Director General of Police, dated 22.02.2021, the
petitioner herein would be entitled for appointment. Since
the petitioner’s case was rejected through the impugned
order, dated 12.01.2022, the same is liable to be set aside
for the aforesaid reasons.
2.2. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the
impugned order dated 12.01.2022 and direct the 3rd respondent to
forthwith pass appropriate orders in the light of the above findings and to
issue posting orders to the petitioner for the post of Grade II Police
Constable pursuant to the notification issued for common recruitment for
the post of Grade-II Police Constable (Armed Reserve, Tamil Nadu
Special Force) Jail Warden and Firemen in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed
Services Recruitment for the year 2020 within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
5/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
3. Against which the present writ appeal filed by the
appellants / respondents with the following among other grounds :
(i) That the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the
writ petition, solely on the basis of clause 7 (b) of the guidelines issued
by the Director General of Police in Rc.No.1268/208889/Rect II(1) 2015,
dated 17.12.2015, in which it has been reiterated in paragraph No.9 of
the subsequent so called guidelines issued in the proceedings by the
Director General of Police in Rc.No.001455/Rect.I(2)/2021, dated
22.02.2021. As per said clause only those who were ‘Honourably
acquittal’ before the date of police verification are eligible for
consideration.
(ii) That the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that
in Paragraph No.7(d) of the very same circular dated 17.12.2015, which
has been reiterated in paragraph No.9 of the subsequent letter issued by
the 1st appellant dated 22.02.2021 states that a ‘discharge on technical
grounds turning hostile witnesses will not entitle a candidate to
automatic clearance. In such circumstances the appointing authorities is
still empowered to reject the candidature on ground of unsuitability for
the the nature of the duties attached to the post.
6/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
following judgments in support of his contentions:
1) Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, reported in (2023) 7
SCC 536, reads as follows :
“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.”
2) W.A.(MD) No. 678 of 2022 (P.Raj Kumar Vs. The Director
7/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023General of Police, Chennai – 600 004 and others) dated 08.07.2022, held
as follows :
“6.This Court considered the propositions reiterated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in several
decided cases. Learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents referred to the Tamil Nadu
Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978,
particularly to explanation (1) of Rule 14(b), which reads
as follows:
“Explanation (1) : a person, who is acquitted or
discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the
complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person
involved in a criminal case”.
It is relevant to mention that the proceedings of
Director General of Police in RC.No.001455/Rect1(2)/
2021 dated 22.02.2021, relied upon by the respondents
gives an indication that discharge on technical grounds
(hostile witnesses) does not entitle the candidate for
automatic clearance and appointing authorities may still
reject the candidature on ground of unsuitability to do the
nature of the duty.
7. In view of the above guidelines and the
explanation (1) to Rule 14(b), this Court is of the view that
in this case, the appellant-s candidature was rejected on
the ground of suitability and the fact that appellant was8/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023acquitted in the criminal case was also noticed by the
authorities. As pointed out earlier, the appellant was
acquitted mainly on the ground that all the three witnesses
have turned hostile. As indicated earlier, the involvement of
the petitioner in a physical altercation cannot be disputed.
Therefore, the accused were discharged from the criminal
case only on the ground that charges were not proved
beyond reasonable doubt because the witness turned
hostile and it can never be treated as honourable
acquittal.”
3) State of M.P. vs. Bhupendra Yadav, reported in (2024) 18 SCC
628 : 2023 SCC On Line SC 1181 reads as follows :
“26. We are, therefore, of the opinion that mere
acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case
[Bhupendra Yadav v. State of M.P., 2017 SCC On Line MP
2372] would not automatically entitle him to being
declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The
appellant State Government has judiciously exercised its
discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors
relating to the antecedents of the respondent. In such a
case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in
which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis
of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him9/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. The
said decision taken by the appellant State Government is
not tainted by any mala fides or arbitrariness for the High
Court to have interfered therewith”.
4. K. Ayyanar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its
Principal Secretary, Home Department and Others reported in 2023
SCC On Line Mad 5000, reads as follows :
8. From the remarks made by the appellant at the
time of submitting his online application and thereafter in
the police verification roll, it could be seen that the
appellant has suppressed his involvement in the criminal
case, which of course, ended in his favour by acquittal by
giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. The
appellant has not only suppressed his involvement in the
criminal case, but also failed to establish his suitability.
9. The Full Bench of this Court in Manikandan v.
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, (2008) 2 CTC 97, has considered suppression as
fatal in certain cases. The observation of the Full Bench in
paragraph 35 of the said judgment reads as follows:—
“Thus the above latest decision of the Apex Court has
cleared the cloud of suspicion on the issue. Therefore
we hold that the failure of a person to disclose his
10/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
involvement in a criminal case, at the earliest point of
time, when the application form is filled up, is fatal.
His subsequent disclosure, whether before acquittal
or after acquittal, will not cure the defect. In any case,
the subsequent disclosure may not have any effect
upon his selection, since his case will then fall under
any one of the 2 Explanations under clause (iv) of
Rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current
selection or for all future selection depending on
whether the acquittal is honorable or otherwise.”
5. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the
averment made in the Writ petition contended that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge is proper and does not warrant any interference
by this Court. It was further submitted that petitioner has been acquitted
of all the charges and he is entitled to appointment to the post. Hence,
prayed that Writ Appeal be dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
11/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
7. The writ petitioner is an applicant to the advertisement for
common recruitment for the post of Grade-II Police Constable (Armed
Reserve, Tamil Nadu Special Force) Jail Warden and Firemen in the
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment for the year 2020. The
petitioner prior to his appointment was involved in two criminal cases,
out of which one case in Crime No.78 of 2015 was closed on the ground
that it was time barred as the police officials not filed the charge sheet
within the time stipulated and it was closed. In another criminal case
Crime No.976 of 2017 he was acquitted. The Judicial Magistrate in his
judgment in C.C.No.189 of 2018 has clearly discussed in paragraph No.8
that the material witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 did not support the prosecution
case and they had turned hostile. Therefore, in paragraph No.10 of the
judgement contended that the Investigation Officer and other officials
had spoken about the crime, since eyewitness to the occurrence turned
hostile, the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused
and consequently, the petitioner was accused and not on the ground that
the there is no merit in the case.
8. Further, in the application submitted by the petitioner
12/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
which is found in page No.44 of the typed set of papers in the column
requiring ‘additional detail as to where any criminal case has been filed
against him, the petitioner answered ‘no’.’ The petitioner disclosed the
details of the criminal cases against him, only at the time when he was
called for a medical test, which was admitted by the petitioner.
9. In the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service
Rules, 1978, Rule 14(b) reads as follows :
(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to
the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the
appointing authority that.
(i) that he is sound health, active habits and free
from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such
service and
(ii) that his character and antecedents are such as
to qualify him for such service and
(iii) that such a person does not have more than
one wife living and
(iv) that he has not involved in any criminal case
before police verification.
Explanation (1): A person who is acquitted for
discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the
complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person
13/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
Involved in a criminal case.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants filed catena of
judgments in which, the Full Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in
Manikandan Vs. Chairman USRB reported in 2008(2) CTC – 97, it was
held that :
“Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service
Rules, 1978, Rule 14(b) Explanation 1 & 2 – Failure by
applicant to disclose his involvement In Criminal Case at
earliest point of time when Application is filled up is
incurable and fatal Applicant cannot cure it by way of
subsequent disclosure – Subsequent disclosure will bring
case within ambit of Explanation 2 and he would ineligible
for current selection or for all future selections depending
on whether acquittal is honourable or otherwise.
Thus the above latest decision of the Apex Court has
cleared the cloud of suspicion on the issue. Therefore we
hold that the failure of a person to disclose his involvement
in a Criminal Case, at the earliest point of time, when the
Application form is filled up. is fatal. His subsequent
disclosure, whether before acquittal or after acquittal, will
not cure the defect. In any case, the subsequent disclosure
may not have any effect upon his selection, since his case14/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023will then fall under any one of the 2 Explanations under
Clause (lv) of Rule 14(b) and make lilm ineligible for the
current selection or for all future (Para 351 selection
depending on whether the acquittal is honorable or
otherwise.”
11. In J. Alex Ponseelan vs. Director General of Police,
reported in (2014) 2 CTC 337, reads as follows :
“103. At this juncture, it is apposite to look into
Pragraph-35 of the Judgment rendered in Commissioner of
Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685,
wherein it is stated like thus:
“The Police force is a Disciplined force. It shoulders
the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and
public order in the society. People repose great faith and
confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A
candidate wishing to join the Police force must be a person
of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character
and integrity. A person having Criminal antecedents will
not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or
discharged in the Criminal case, that Acquittal or
Discharge Order will have to be examined to see whether
he has been completely exonerated in the case because
even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a15/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023threat to the discipline of the Police force.”
104. A cursory look of the observation made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court would clearly go to show that Police
force is a disciplined force, wherein a person, who is
having atmost rectitude, is eligible for recruitment. The
person, who has involved in Criminal case, is totally unfit
for such recruitment.
105. Since the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Mehar Singh‘s case is similar to the object of
Explanations 1 & 2 of Rule 14(b)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu
Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, it is
needless to say that the same should be held as intra vires.
Further in view of the discussion made earlier, the law laid
down in Manikandan’s case, 2008 (2) CTC 97 rendered by
the Full Bench of this Court, still holds field and the same
need not be overruled as the Special Leave Petitions have
been dismissed holding as follows:
“No ground is made out for our interference with the
impugned Judgment. The Special Leave Petitions are
dismissed accordingly.”
106. It has become shunless to say that Clause IV of
Rule 14(b), together with Explanations 1 & 2 have been
introduced only for the purpose of recruiting persons, who
are having rectitude and not persons involved in Criminal
case (s). The Government of Tamil Nadu have introduced16/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023the same with atmost summum bonum for the purpose of
maintaining a disciplined Police force. Since Clause IV of
Rule 14(b), and its Explanations 1 & 2 have been
introduced with atmost good faith, nobody is entitled to
have a furtive look upon it.”
12. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge holding
that the petitioner disclosed the pendency of criminal cases in his
application as well as during police verification and also placing
Reliance upon clause 7(b) and 8(i) of the guidelines to conclude that a
candidate who has been honourably acquitted is entitled to be considered
for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constables, is
unsustainable in view of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu
Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, particularly, Rule 14(b)
(1) and the catena of judgments referred to Supra, it is settled that where
a person is acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, such acquittal
cannot be construed as honourable acquittal, and the candidate would
still be considered as having criminal antecedents which the appointing
authority is entitled to take into account while assessing his suitability for
appointment.
17/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
13. Further, this Court has only limited scope of interference
with the decision of the appointing authority in matters relating to
assessment of suitability for appointment. Hence, we hold that the
impugned order, dated 12.01.2022 is hereby confirmed and accordingly,
the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent prayed
that respondent may be permitted to attend interview in the event his call
for any future recruitment. This Court of the view that there is no bar for
the respondent to apply for any post in future, if he is otherwise eligible
and not disqualified under the relevant rules.
15. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of
the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2022 passed in W.P.(MD) No.13097
of 2022 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
(G.R.S., J.) & (R.P., J.)
23.03.2026
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
18/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
To
1.The Director General of Police
State of Tamil Nadu,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 4.
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Pandiyan Salai, Elambur,
Chennai – 8.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
North, Tiruchirappalli City,
Tiruchirappalli.
19/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
W.A(MD) No.1039 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
WA.(MD)No.1039 of 2023
23.03.2026
20/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2026 06:02:12 pm )
