Motlapally Vishnu, vs The State Level Police ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1771 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

                WRIT PETITION No.24544 of 2019

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-

''... to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling for the records in memorandum in RC No.118/Rct/ Admn,2/2019, dated 12.09.2019 issued by the first respondent authority in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post SCT P.C. (Civil)(Men) in terms of notification No.927/R&T/Rect.2/2011, dated 31.10.2011, inspite of clear direction of this Hon'ble Court W.P.No.9027/2019 to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Avtar Singh's case as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of the natural justice and also without application of mind and consequentially direct the respondent authorities to recruit and appoint the petitioner in the post of S.C.T., P.C.(Civil)(Men) in terms of the notification No.927/R&T/Rect.2/2011, dated 31.10.2011 on par with the candidates already considered by the respondents in the recruitment process by exempting the suppression of facts under 3(G) rules and in terms of principles laid down in Avtar Singh's case by the honourable Apex Court and pass such other order or orders..."

2. Heard Sri M. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri M. V. Rama Rao, learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he participated in the

selection process to the post of SCT P.C.(Civil)(Men) along with

others pursuant to the notification dated 31.10.2011 issued by the

authorities of erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and qualified for

the said post. Accordingly, he was called for verification of

certificates for which the petitioner furnished the information

required by the respondents. The petitioner was served with a

show-cause notice dated 05.01.2013 wherein he was informed that

he concealed the information about his involvement in criminal

Case Nos.61 to 69 of 2011 under Section.9(i)(b) of Gaming Act of

PS Mulug.

4. It is contended that the petitioner submitted his explanation

dated 19.01.2013 to the show cause notice stating that at the time

of applying for the said post, no criminal case was pending against

him and the said case ended in acquittal vide judgment in STC

No.474/2012, dated 21.11.2012 on the file of the learned Special

Judicial II Class Magistrate, at Mulug. Therefore, requested to

consider his claim for appointment. It is further submitted that the

petitioner filed W.P.No.9076 of 2019 wherein this Hon'ble Court

was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the

case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of SCT (PL.C)

(Civil) (Men) in terms of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex

Court in Avtar Singh's case. But the respondent authorities

rejected his case vide Memorandum

Rc.No.118/Rect./Admn.2/2019 dated 12.09.2019 stating that

suppression of material facts either in the application form or

attestation form is a disqualification for appointment.

5. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking to consider

the case of the petitioner for subject post in pursuance of the

notification dated 31.10.2011.

6. Counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 stating that during

antecedents verification, it came to the light that the petitioner was

involved in Criminal Case vide Cr.Nos.61 to 69/2011 under

Section 9(i)(b) of A.P. Gaming Act of Mulug Police Station and the

case was charged on 03.09.2011. But the petitioner failed to

mention the case details in the attestation form which was

submitted by him on 25.09.2012 i.e., much after his involvement

in the criminal case, which amounts to suppression of facts and a

disqualification for appointment to a post under Government

Service as per Rule 12 (1) (a) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh State & Sub-

ordinate Service Rules and Rule 3 (F) of the SCT Rules issued in

G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal-II) Department dated 01.05.2006.

7. It is further submitted that as per Rule 3(G)(i) of Andhra

Pradesh Police (Stipendary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999, issued in

G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal.II) Department dated 01.05.2006,

suppression of material facts is a disqualification for appointment

to the post of SCT PCs/SCT SIs. Hence, the petitioner's provisional

selection to the subject post was cancelled. In support of the

contentions raised by respondent No.1, he relied on the decisions

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Devender Kumar Vs. State of

Uttaranchal Pradesh1" and "Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India2",

the prevailing Rules and therefore seeks to dismiss the writ

petition.

8. A perusal of the record shows that the writ petitioner was

accused No.6 in the STC No.474 of 2012 on the file of the learned

Special Judicial II Class Magistrate, at Mulug wherein he along

with eight (8) others were charge sheeted in Case Nos.61 to 69 of

2011 for the offence punishable under Section 9(1)(b) of Andhra

Pradesh Gaming Act, 1974, which is punishable with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or

with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees or with both.

However, the petitioner was acquitted of the said offence, vide

judgment dated 21.11.2012.

9. In Avatar Singh, Supreme Court recorded its conclusions

in paragraph 38. It reads 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 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

(2013) 9 SCC 363

(2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 471

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.

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

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

10. In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs Mehar Singh3,

Supreme Court observed as follows:

"34. ................. It bears repetition to state that while deciding whether a person against whom a criminal case was registered and who was later on acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature of the offence, the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt because the witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future. This decision, in our opinion, can only be taken by the Screening Committee created for that purpose by the Delhi Police. If the Screening Committee's decision is not mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations, then, it cannot be questioned.

35. 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 a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward

(2013) 7 SCC 685

manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even hand."

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this

Court to G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 22.02.2014, wherein the

representation of similarly placed person was considered. One Sri

Gedela Prasada Rao, who was provisionally selected to the post of

SCT Sub-Inspector (Civil-men) in Zone VI was involved in Crime

No. 70/2006 under Sections. 341, 342 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code of Denkada Police Station, was arrested and released on bail.

That case ended in acquittal. He suppressed this information both

in the application form and the attestation form and therefore

disqualified for appointment. Therefore, the provisional selection of

the applicant to the post of SCT Sub Inspector (Civil)(Men) in

Zone-VI was cancelled. In the circumstances stated by the

Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad and after careful examination of the matter,

Government appointed Sri Gedela Prasada Rao, to the post of SCT

Sub Inspector (Civil-Men), in pursuance of the notification in

relaxation of Rule 3(G)(i) of the G.O.Ms.No.315, Home (Police-C)

Department dated 13.10.1999, read with G.O.Ms.No.97, Home

(Legal.II) Department, dated 01.05.2006 of the Andhra Pradesh

Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999, as a special case,

by invoking Rule 31 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate

Service Rules, 1996 stating that these orders shall not be quoted

as a precedent case in any future correspondence.

12. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the case of the petitioner is trivial in nature and when an

exemption was given to a similarly placed person, who is involved

in serious and grave offence, the same benefit can be extended to

the petitioner also who is involved in the offence of trivial nature.

13. On the other hand learned Special Government Pleader

vehemently argues that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Avatar Singh's case will not come to the

rescue of the writ petitioner and the relevant portion of the said

decision is extracted as hereunder:-

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

14. He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar Vs. Union of

India and Others4. The relevant paras in the said judgment are

extracted as hereunder:-

"8. It may be noted that even after the guiding principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh by the three-judge Bench,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 27

divergent views were expressed by the various benches of this Court. Therefore, this Court in case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India5, after taking into consideration the inconsistent views taken in the cases of "Union of India Vs. Methu Meda6"; "Union of India Vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick7", "Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India8", "Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited Vs. Anil Kanwariya9", "Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra10" etc.

(c) 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.

(d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.

15. Having considered the rival submissions made by both the

learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that as on the date of

notification the petitioner was involved in criminal case pertaining

to a petty offence.

16. It may be true that the petitioner was acquitted of the

offence punishable under Section.9(i)(b) of Gaming Act of PS

Mulug but it was subsequent to his appointment and it is clear

and admitted fact that the said case was pending against him by

the date of his appointment.

17. What is to be considered is that whether the petitioner has

disclosed about pendency of any criminal case as required in Form

5 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300 6 (2022) 1 SCC 1 7 (2022) 6 Scale 106 8 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532 9 (2021) 10 SCC 136 10 (2019) 17 SCC 696

No.25 or not. But the subsequent acquittal or conviction has no

relevance to decide the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner has not

disclosed about pendency of criminal case against him in Form

No.25 and he has also not given any special circumstances for his

involvement in the said case. Therefore, the impugned action was

taken terminating his services since the action of the petitioner

was involving moral turpitude.

18. Further, the petitioner seeks consideration on par with on

Gedela Prasadarao in relaxation of Rule 3(G)(i) of the

G.O.Ms.No.315, Home (Police-C) Department dated 13.10.1999,

read with G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal.II) Department, dated

01.05.2006 of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet

Trainee) Rules, 1999. But it is an admitted fact that in the said

case the Government appointed said Gedela Prasada Rao as a

special case and observed that those orders shall not be quoted as

a precedent case in any future correspondence. Therefore, the case

of the petitioner cannot be considered.

19. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

view that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the relief

sought for by him and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed as devoid of merit.

20. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this

writ petition shall also stand dismissed.

____________________________ JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL Date: 25.04.2023 ESP / Kvsn