Telangana High Court
L Sampath vs The State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.2028 OF 2021
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the impugned Memorandum Rc.No.137/Rect/Admn.4/2020
dt.17.12.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent cancelling the petitioner's
provisional selection, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same
and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the candidature
of the petitioner for provisional selection for the post of SCT PC (Civil)
in Hyderabad and to permit the petitioner to attend the current batch of
Induction Training which was in progress from the month of November,
2020 or the next batch training and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the petitioner belongs to ST Community and was selected as SCT
PC (Civil) in Hyderabad bearing Reg.No.1142305 in Recruitment
Notification, 2018 subject to verification of antecedents, caste and
medical fitness. In the attestation form, the petitioner has mentioned the
details of case in Crime No.774 of 2016 of L.B.Nagar Police Station,
Rachakonda under Sections 354B, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code
(IPC) as pending against him. It is stated that the petitioner failed to
mention the details of the case in Crime No.819 of 2016 under Sections
341, 323 and 506 of IPC on the file of Meerpet Police Station. The 2nd
respondent issued a show-cause notice dt.27.02.2020 to the petitioner
directing the petitioner to show cause as to why his provisional selection
to the post of SCT PC (Civil) should not be cancelled as he was
involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.774 of 2016. The petitioner
submitted his explanation that he has been acquitted of the offences in
Crime No.774 of 2016 of L.B.Nagar Police Station. However, a revised
show-cause notice dt.22.09.2020 was issued stating that the petitioner
was involved in another Crime No.819 of 2016 of Meerpet Police
Station under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of IPC, wherein he was
convicted to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and since the details of the same
were not furnished in the attestation form and were suppressed by him
and hence to show cause as to why his provisional selection to the post
of SCT PC (Civil) should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his
reply stating that the criminal case in Crime No.819 of 2016 on the file
of Meerpet Police Station was not mentioned as it was already disposed
of as on that date and not mentioning the case details of Crime No.819
of 2016 in the attestation form was neither wilful nor intentional but was
due to lack of knowledge/guidance, miscommunication, misconception
at the centre. The 2nd respondent, thereafter, cancelled the provisional
selection of the petitioner vide proceedings dt.22.10.2020. Challenging
the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20024 of 2020 which was
disposed of at the admission stage vide orders dt.11.11.2020 directing
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India and others 1. Thereafter, the respondents have
reconsidered the issue and have issued the impugned proceedings
dt.17.12.2020 by holding that the acquittal of the petitioner in Crime
No.774 of 2016 is not a clean acquittal but that it involved moral
turpitude and that the petitioner has paid a fine of Rs.2,000/- in Crime
No.819 of 2016 which would amount to admission of guilt and thus, the
petitioner has suppressed these details in the attestation form and
therefore, he cannot be considered for appointment as SCT PC (Civil).
Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
(2016) 8 SCC 471
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above
submissions, submitted that the petitioner is an unemployed youth and
belongs to SC community and was not aware of the legal position that
even in cases where the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in a
criminal case, was required to give necessary details in the attestation
form. He submitted that it was for this reason that the petitioner could
not give the information in the attestation form and the petitioner may
not be penalised for the same. He further submitted that the Criminal
Case in Crime No.774 of 2016 was on account of a family dispute and
was a result of the tussle between the family members and is not a case
of moral turpitude as alleged by the respondents. He submitted that the
trial Court has held that there was no evidence against the petitioner and
therefore, he was cleanly acquitted and hence, on the said basis, the
petitioner's provisional appointment should not be cancelled. As regards
Crime No.819 of 2016 and the payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, he
submitted that it was a petty offence and it was a case of case and
counter cases between himself and his step brother and both the cases
were closed on payment of fine and should not come in the way of his
appointment. He placed reliance upon the following judgments in
support of these contentions.
(1) Pawan Kmar Vs. State of Haryana and another2
(2) Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others (1 supra).
4. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted
that the police force is a disciplined force and therefore, the candidates
are required to be honest and transparent and since the petitioner has
given the details of one case but has not given the details of another
case, from which he has been let off on payment of fine, it would
amount to admission of guilt and therefore, the provisional appointment
of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the provisional selection of the petitioner has been
cancelled on two counts,
(1) The acquittal of the petitioner in Crime No.774 of 2016 of
L.B.Nagar Police Station is not a clean acquittal; and
(1996) 4 SCC 17
(2) The petitioner failed to provide information in respect of Crime
No.819 of 2016 of Meerpet Police Station and further he has
admitted to his guilt by paying the fine.
6. In respect of the first issue, this Court finds that the petitioner has
been acquitted of the charges against him after due trial. The trial Court
has given the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inspector General of Police Vs.
S. Samuthiram3 would apply. The relevant paras are reproduced
hereunder for ready reference.
"24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal"
came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh
Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594 : (1994) 26 ATC
619] . In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation
46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the
disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere
acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the
acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions
"honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are
unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which
are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define
precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted".
(2013) 1 SCC 598
When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution
evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the
charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the
accused was honourably acquitted.
25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787] it was
held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may
follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of
Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari [1972 SLR 44 (SC)] this Court
quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J.
in Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor [ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168]
which is as follows : (Raghava case [1972 SLR 44 (SC)] , SLR p. 47,
para 8)
"8. ... 'The expression "honourably acquitted" is one
which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form
of order used in courts martial and other extrajudicial
tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the
explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and
considered that it ought to have been accepted by the
government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we
decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies
referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our
judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and
completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted.
Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities
term "honourably acquitted".'" (Robert Stuart case [ILR
(1934) 61 Cal 168] , ILR pp. 188-89)
26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any
provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is
honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the
employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that
the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a
criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary
proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of
establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails
to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed
to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required
to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary
proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There
may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the
prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses
turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take
steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the
complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore,
acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared
to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably
acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to
claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not
provide so.
27. We have also come across cases where the service rules
provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be
kept under suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be
reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement is automatic. There may
be cases where the service rules provide that in spite of domestic
enquiry, if the criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he
could be reinstated. In other words, the issue whether an employee
has to be reinstated in service or not depends upon the question
whether the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement
and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil
Nadu Service Rules.
28. In view of the abovementioned circumstances, we are of
the view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the
punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings as against the
respondent, in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India."
7. Thus, in this case, it is seen that only on the basis of the
complaint, in which the complainant did not identify the offender in the
complaint, or in any subsequent proceedings (such as identification
parade) or during the trial, the accused has been held as not proved as
guilty of alleged offence. There are no other proceedings in which, the
petitioner has been held as guilty. Therefore, the acquittal of the
petitioner by the Criminal Courts has to be held to be honourable
acquittal.
8. As regards the second issue, it is noticed that in the latest decision
dt.31.01.2020 the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, in the case of State of
Odisha and others Vs. Gobinda Behera 4, has observed as under:
Civil Appeal No.893 of 2020 dt.31.01.2020
"6 The position in law has been considered by this Court in a
decision of a three-Judge Bench in Avtar Singh. The summary of the
conclusions is contained in the following extract:
"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 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."
7 The respondent was seeking public employment in the State
police service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a
responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law
and order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. To
expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the
disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable
basis for assessment of personality and character. The employer can
legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts
does not deserve to be in its employment."
9. In view of the above Judgment, it is to be seen if the offence in
Crime No.819 of 2016 under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of IPC is trivial
in nature or not ? The allegations are of criminal intimidation, wrongful
restraint and voluntarily causing hurt. It is noticed that there has been
altercation between the petitioner and his brother L. Shankar and both of
them have lodged complaints against each other. While the complaint
against the petitioner is registered as Crime No.819 of 2016, the
complaint against L. Shankar is registered as Crime No.820 of 2016 and
both the complaints were closed on payment of fine.
10. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kmar Vs. State of Haryana and
another (2 supra), wherein it was observed as under:
"14. Before concluding this judgment we hereby draw attention of the
Parliament to step in and perceive the large many cases which per law
and public policy are tried summarily, involving thousands and
thousands of people through out the country appearing before
summary courts and paying small amounts of fine, more often than not,
as a measure of plea-bargaining. Foremost among them being traffic,
municipal and other petty offences under the Indian Penal Code,
mostly committed by the young and/or the inexperienced. The cruel
result of a conviction of that kind and a fine of payment of a paltry sum
on plea-bargaining is the end of the career, future or present, as the
case may be, of that young and/or in experienced person, putting a
blast to his life and his dreams. Life is too precious to be staked over a
petty incident like this. Immediate remedial measures are therefore
necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to petty offences
especially when tried summarily. Provision need be made that
punishment of fine upto a certain limit, say upto Rs.2000/- or so, on a
summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all
for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in
government service. This can brook no delay, whatsoever."
11. Having regard to the above judgment, this issue is also decided in
favour of the petitioner.
12. Therefore, the impugned Memorandum dt.17.12.2020 is set aside
and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment to the post of SCT PC (Civil) and send him for training
along with the next batch of candidates.
13. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.06.2024
Svv
