Telangana High Court
Gajula Thirupathi vs The State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 20833 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned Memo
Rc.No.176/Tect./Admn.2/2020-21, dated 29.01.2021, issued
by the respondent No.2 cancelling the provisional selection of
the petitioner to the post of S.C.T.P.C.(TSSP) through Memo
Rc.No.222/Rectt./Genl.1/2009, dated 17.08.2020, despite of
his clear acquittal/compounded in CC.No.35 of 2020 in FIR
No.190/2014, under Sections 417,420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC on
the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli
by the Hon'ble Lokadalath/Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, to set
aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,
15, 16 & 21 of Indian Constitution and consequently to direct
the respondents to send the petitioner to the basic training of
SCTPCs by issuing appointment in pursuance of Recruitment
notification Rc.No.88/Rect/Admn.2018, dated 31.05.2018 and
to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the respondent No.2 has issued a notification
TMD,J
Rc.No.88/Rect/Admn.2018, dated 31.05.2018 for the post of
Stipendiary Cadet Training Police Constable (SCTPC). The
petitioner was provisionally selected to the said post subject to
verification of his antecedents and his medical fitness. In the
attestation form, the petitioner had informed the respondent
No.2 about the acquittal from a false criminal case registered
against him vide FIR No.190/2014, dated 21.12.2014 of Police
Station Dharmaram for the offences under Sections 417, 420,
506 r/w 34 of IPC. Subsequently, on 31.08.2015, the case was
compounded in Lok Adalath held by the Hon'ble Senior Civil
Judge, Peddapalli. This fact was also informed to the
respondent No.2 through his application and S.B.Enquiry.
3. It is submitted that on 25.02.2020 the respondent
No.2 issued a show cause notice calling for the explanation of
the petitioner as to why his provisional selection to the post of
SCTPC (TSSP) should not be cancelled as per rules as he was
involved in a serious case of Moral Turpitude. In response to the
same, the petitioner submitted his reply on 07.03.2020 stating
that the case foisted against him was a false case and that he
was acquitted by the Hon'ble Lok Adalath vide its award dated
31.08.2015 and that it is an honourable acquittal in the eye of
TMD,J
law but not on any technical ground or benefit of doubt. The
copy of the award was also filed along with the explanation.
However, the respondent No.2 held that 'where a person is
involved in an offence of moral turpitude, he is disqualified for
appointment' and therefore, the petitioner's provisional selection
was cancelled. Challenging the same, the present writ petition
has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating
the above submissions, submitted that the respondents have
not given any evidence of statutory provision in support of their
contention that the petitioner was involved in an offence of
moral turpitude. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases in support of his
case of honourable acquittal:
(1) Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Others 1;
(2) Union of India and Others Vs. Methu Meda 2;
(3) Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No. 902 of 2023.
2 (2022) 1 SCC 1
TMD,J
5. It is further submitted that once an issue has been
settled before the Lok Adalath, it is final and it has to be
considered as an honourable acquittal and the petitioner's
provisional selection ought not to have been cancelled for the
said reason.
6. The Learned Special Government Pleader,
appearing for the respondents, has filed a counter affidavit
justifying the cancellation order and also submitted that as per
the rules, involvement in a case of moral turpitude is itself a
disqualification for appointment. It is submitted that the
petitioner has compromised with the victim, which amounts to
admission of guilt and therefore, the judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to this
case. It is submitted that in this case, the petitioner had sexual
relation with the victim in the name of love and promised to
marry her and subsequently, he postponed the matter and
refused to marry the victim girl and even his parents have
allegedly threatened to kill the victim, if she asked their son to
marry her and it was in these circumstances, that accused No.1
was remanded to judicial custody and later even got married to
another woman and thus, cheated the victim. It is submitted
TMD,J
that when the case was pending trial, both the parties
compromised the case vide CC.No.35/2015 before the Lok
Adalath at JFCM Court, Peddapalli on 31.05.2015 and
therefore, it is a clear case of compromise to avoid a trial and
not a case of clean and honourable acquittal.
7. Learned Special Government Pleader also relied
upon the following case laws in support of the impugned order:
(1) Copy of Division Bench order of this Court passed
in W.P.No.20348 of 2012, dated 14.06.2022.
(2) Copy of the order of this Court passed in
W.P.No.28981 of 2019, dated 13.09.2023.
(3) Copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed
in Civil Appeal No.4960/2021, dated 25.08.2021.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was
involved in a case of cheating and subsequently he had been
acquitted by the Court of Lok Adalath on a compromise arrived
at between both the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (cited
supra) has observed as follows:
TMD,J
21. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out
fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be of
good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by
suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending
on date of filling attestation form, whether he may be deprived of
employment? There may be case of involving moral
turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but
due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be
situation when person has been convicted of an offence before
filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding
it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome
of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action
has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case
resulting in conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The situation
may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where
disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then
also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for
appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process
of verification of information, certain information comes to notice
then also employer is required to take a decision considering
various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification
of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has
to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for
trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to
be attached to such non-disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to
deal with all kind of cases?
22. The employer is given 'discretion' to terminate or otherwise
to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the
power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form
declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it
becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances,
including impact of suppression or false information are taken into
consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for
services in question. In case the employer come to the conclusion
that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been
disclosed would not have affected adversely fitness of an
incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the
lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on
due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For
higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and
even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render
a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard cannot
be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it
has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and
would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An
TMD,J
employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed to
terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of
various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully the
employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect
of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence etc.
have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer
may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or
giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a
person who is unfit or dubious character. In case employer comes to
conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case
would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent may be
appointed or continued in service.
Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
employer has to prudently, on due consideration of nature of
post and duties to be rendered, has to take a decision and
therefore, the effect of conviction or acquittal on the case may
be and background of the case, nature of offence, etc., have to
be considered while taking a decision.
9. In this case the petitioner is aspiring to be
appointed as a police constable. The allegation against him is
that he had sexual relationship with the victim lady, but
subsequently, had refused to marry her. It is also not in dispute
that the petitioner has married another woman and
subsequently due to the intervention of the elders, the matter
was settled before the Lok Adalath Court. Though, the award of
Lok Adalath is binding on the parties as a decision/decree of
the Court, the nature of offence and the grounds on which the
TMD,J
petitioner has been acquitted have to be considered by the
employer. In this case, the employer has held that the petitioner
was involved in a case of moral turpitude. Though it is a case
which can be said of involvement in moral turpitude, this Court
also has to look into the circumstances of the case. In the
present scenario, a number of youth are involving in such
activities in the name of love and subsequently, when the
relationship goes sour, they plead a foul play on the part of the
other party. The victim is aged about 22 years and both the
petitioner as well as victim admittedly belong to the same
village. Therefore, the possibility of consensual relationship
between the parties cannot be ruled out. Further, the petitioner
has been acquitted from the charges on account of a settlement
between the parties. The police verification certificate filed at
Page No.77 of the writ papers show that the writ petitioner has a
clean record except for the above case. Therefore, this Court is
of the opinion that the employer respondent No.2, ought to have
taken the same into consideration before cancelling the
provisional selection of the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit and
proper to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the
TMD,J
petitioner and dehors the Lok Adalath award in CC.No.35/2015,
if the petitioner has a clean record otherwise, then he shall be
considered for appointment and the respondents shall send him
for training with the future next batch of constables.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.06.2024
bak
