Sangilimurugan. U vs. The District Collector

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated July 12, 2023. The Court held that the respondents failed to establish that the petitioner had knowledge of the criminal cases where action was dropped. Following the precedent set in similar cases, particularly the judgment in W.P.No.7828 of 2020, the Court found that for trivial offenses, exemption can be given, especially when the individual concerned might not have been aware of the FIR registration. The impugned order lacked sufficient material to prove that the petitioner knowingly suppressed information. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Village Assistant with notional seniority but without back wages. The respondents were directed to issue the appointment order within twelve weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, U. Sangilimurugan, was selected for the post of Village Assistant but was denied an appointment order by the Tahsildar, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District, through an order dated July 12, 2023. The denial was based on allegations of criminal precedents and suppression of material facts. The petitioner had an FIR registered against him in Crime No. 308 of 2021 under Section 151 Cr.P.C., related to a protest against fuel price hikes and the impact of GST on construction materials. This FIR was later quashed by the High Court. However, the respondents cited several other cases where action was dropped, and alleged suppression of these facts by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of these cases as he was not arrested and the actions were dropped.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's non-disclosure of involvement in criminal cases, where action was dropped, constitutes suppression of material facts warranting denial of appointment, considering the petitioner's knowledge of such cases? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 151 Cr.P.C. and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was unaware of most of the cases registered against him, as he was not arrested and the actions were dropped. He only became aware of FIR in Crime No. 308 of 2021, which was subsequently quashed. He did not intentionally suppress any facts. The cases were trivial in nature, and the principle laid down in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. should apply, which requires knowledge of involvement for suppression to be considered. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner had wantonly suppressed his involvement in the listed cases, and making a false statement regarding arrest, prosecution, and conviction has a bearing on his conduct and character, justifying the impugned order.