Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Government Andhra Pradesh vs M.Vijaya Masker, on 7 March, 2023
Bench: D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, V Srinivas
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
W.P.No.18522 of 2012
ORDER: (per Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)
This Writ Petition is filed by the State questioning the
orders passed in O.A.No.1885 of 2012.
This Court has heard learned Government Pleader for
Services-I and learned counsel for the respondent.
The sole respondent is the applicant in O.A.No.1885 of
2012. He filed the O.A. when his selection as a Sub-Inspector
(civil) was negatived by a memo dated 18.02.2012
disqualifying him for appointment in view of Rule 3(G)(i) of the
Andhra Pradesh Police Rules, 1999 (for short „the Rules‟).
The respondent‟s case is that he was involved in a
criminal case in C.C.No.14 of 2005, which was ended as
acquittal on 12.06.2006. He had applied for the post of Sub-
Inspector (Civil) pursuant to the notification of 2008 which is
long after the acquittal in the case. It is submitted that due to
ignorance and under the belief that he was already acquitted,
the respondent did not mention the same in the application
form. He, therefore, submits that the cancellation of selection
by the memorandum dated 18.02.2012 is incorrect.
The original application filed by him namely
O.A.No.1885 of 2012 was allowed by order dated 02.04.2012.
The same is questioned in this writ.
Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that
the respondent who wished to enter a disciplined uniform
services cannot be an accused in any criminal case and that
he willfully suppressed the facts of his involvement in a
criminal case while furnishing the information in the
application form. It is also submitted that the action taken is
strictly in accordance with the Rules, which mandates that
even involvement in a criminal case and the suppression of
the same is a ground to negative the selection. Learned
Government Pleader relies upon the case of Avtar Singh v.
Union of India which is reported after a reference in (2016) 8
SCC 471 (F.B) and also in (2018) 1 SCC 268 (D.B). Learned
Government Pleader submits that in view of this judgment,
the respondent is not entitled to any selection. He states that
the OA was wrongly allowed and prays that the writ must be
allowed.
In reply to this, the learned counsel for the respondent
points out that the order passed by the Tribunal is a reasoned
order which had considered the facts and circumstances. He
points out that it is not in dispute that the trial Court
delivered the judgment in June, 2006 itself acquitting the
respondent which is long prior to the employment notification
of 2008. It is also submitted that due to ignorance and also
the acquittal, the respondent did not fill up the form properly.
He points out that respondent is otherwise a meritorious
candidate who was selected on merit. Learned counsel for
the respondent points out that at para-11, the facts and dates
were noted by the Tribunal and in Para-10, the orders passed
by the Tribunal in similar cases of the police constables were
considered before the impugned order was passed directing
the respondents to consider the cases of the candidates.
Learned counsel for the respondent also points out that
the Tribunal relied upon the earlier order passed in
O.A.No.1308 of 2011, which is also annexed as a material
paper. He points out that directions were issued in the said
OA to consider the candidates. Lastly, he submits that the
offence involved is a very minor offence under the Excise Act
and Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and are not offences
involved the moral turpitude etc. Therefore, he submits that it
is a fit case to dismiss the writ petition.
Court: This Court notices that there is no dispute about
the facts or the rule position. It is a fact that the respondent
did not disclose about his involvement in the criminal case or
the acquittal. The notification under which the respondent
applied for the post was of the year 2008. The Criminal case
was registered against him in 2004 and the same ended in an
acquittal in C.C.No.14 of 2005 on 12.06.2006. The offence
under which he was charged are under section 41 of the
Excise Act and Section 8(b)(1) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition
Act which deal with possession, collection, transport etc., of
liquor punishable for a term from 6 months to maximum 8
years and a fine. Section 41 of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition
Act deals with a penalty for an offence not otherwise provided
for.
If the celebrated case of Avtar Singh (1 supra) is
examined in the reference made by the three Judges and
reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471, the conclusions are given in
para Nos. 38.4 and 38.4.1 which is as follows:
"38.4 In case there is suppression or false
information of involvement in a criminal case where
conviction or acquittal had already been recorded
before filling of the application/verification form and
such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any
of the following recourse appropriate to the case may
be adopted ....
38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which
conviction had been recorded, such as shouting
slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if
disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent
unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse."
Subsequently, in the final judgment reported in 2018 (1)
SCC 268, as the appellant was charged under sections 323
and 324 r/w section 34 of IPC, the appellant was given an
option of filing appropriate representation and the respondent
authority was given an option of passing an order thereof. In
that case, an appeal at the instance of the State against the
order of acquittal was pending.
In the case on hand, admittedly there is no appeal
pending. The case is also "trivial" in a way and is not a
heinous offence. The case also ended in a clear acquittal; as
no evidence was found against the accused.
Therefore, considering the seriousness of the offence,
and in view of existing law, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner State cannot succeed in this writ. Denying
justice to the petitioner/present respondent would be an
injustice. The order passed is a reasoned order, which
considered the law. In the facts and circumstances, since the
offence does not involve moral turpitude nor is the offence of a
serious or heinous nature, this writ petition is dismissed. The
order in the O.A.No.1885 of 2012 is confirmed. The writ
petitioners are directed to take necessary steps to process the
case of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
_______________________
JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS
Date : .03.2023
AG
