The Commandant, I Bn Apsp, vs B. Papi Naiad, Unemployee,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3769 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                               AND

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

           Writ Petition No.17835 of 2005

ORDER :   (Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

     Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I,

for the petitioner; and Mr. K. Anantha Rao, learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

the respondent herein was initially appointed as

'Home-Guard'. Later, the respondent had applied for

the post of 'Stipendiary Cadet Training Constable

Posts' in the year 2001. However, the case of

respondent was not considered for appointment to the

post of 'Police Constable', even though the respondent

was coming within the zone of consideration only on

the ground that respondent has suppressed about

criminal cases pending against him.

3. When the case of respondent was not considered,

the respondent preferred O.A.No.4975 of 2000 before ::2:: HCJ & AKS,J wp_17835_2005

the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,

Hyderabad.

4. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated

03.03.2005, was pleased to dispose of the O.A. by

directing the petitioner to consider the case of

respondent in terms of a judgment rendered by this

Court in Writ Petition No.18929 of 2002, dated

11.10.2002, and to re-consider the case of respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

contended that during the pendency of the present writ

petition, the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed a

judgment in Avatar Singh vs. Union of India1, and

the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.38 has

elaborately framed certain guidelines which is

reproduced as under :

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus :

38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be

(2016) 8 SCC 471 ::3:: HCJ & AKS,J wp_17835_2005

true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the government orders / instructions / rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

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 recourses 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.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous / serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

                              ::4::                        HCJ & AKS,J
                                                       wp_17835_2005

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7 In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8 If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9 In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination / removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

38.10 For determining suppression or false information attestation / verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or ::5:: HCJ & AKS,J wp_17835_2005

submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppression very or suggestion falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

6. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, the petitioner would consider the case of

respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance

with law.

7. It is contended that the respondent was acquitted

in a criminal case and there is no bar for the petitioner

to re-consider the case of respondent for appointment

as 'Police Constable'.

8. In view of the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court and the judgment of this Court referred to

supra by the learned Government Pleader for Services-

I, this Court, having considered the rival submissions

made by the parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of

the writ petition directing the petitioner to consider the

case of respondent for appointment as 'Police

Constable' duly taking into account the guidelines ::6:: HCJ & AKS,J wp_17835_2005

framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avatar Singh

(1 supra).

9. The petitioner shall consider the case of

respondent in view of the above guidelines preferably

within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

10. With these observations, the Writ Petition is

disposed of as above. No costs.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

___________________________ N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

Date : 18.07.2022 Ndr