Telangana High Court

The Chairman Telangana State Level ... vs P. Prashanth on 4 August, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                              AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

                  WRIT APPEAL No. 537 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel for

respondent No.1/writ petitioner.

2. Writ petitioner under the advertisement dated

31.05.2018 made online application for recruitment to the post

of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil/AR) for

men and women in Police Department. Admittedly, the

prescribed pro forma did not contain a column to disclose

information regarding any criminal case in which the applicant

was involved. The advertisement contained Clause 27, which

reads as under:

"27. SUPPRESSION / WITHHOLDING OF FACTS - NOT ADVISABLE

Suppression of Material facts or withholding any factual information in the Online Application or Attestation Form (which would be supplied to the Candidates who are declared provisionally selected) will disqualify the Candidate from being considered 2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

for appointment. In the event of any information being found false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected at any time even after Appointment, he/she will be discharged from service forthwith by the Appointing Authority without any notice."

After provisional selection, successful candidates were

required to fill up the attestation form. Attestation form was

filled up by the writ petitioner on 07.10.2019. Clause 11 of the

attestation form is extracted hereunder:

Whether you were involved in any criminal case? Yes No

If yes, indicate

a) Crime No. and section of law

b) Year

c) Name of the Police Station

d) Name of the district

e) Whether you were arrested by the Police? Yes No (even in petty case or under preventive sections)

f) Whether you were prosecuted by the Police in a court of law? if so, indicate the present stage of this case:

1) under trial 2) convicted 3) compounded 4) acquitted Note: 1) If convicted whether such conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal or set aside by the Appellate Court if appealed against:

2) Whether you were involved in more than one criminal case? Yes No If yes, give details in separate paper in the above proforma

3) If involved in a criminal case subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be informed immediately to the authority to whom the attestation form has been submitted earlier failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information 3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

Admittedly, the writ petitioner ticked the column 'No'. The

writ petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 28.02.2020

asking him to explain as to why his provisional selection be

not cancelled as in true verification of his antecedents, it was

found that he was involved in a criminal case vide Cr.No.66 of

2018 under Sections 376, 417 of IPC of Asifnagar Police

Station, Hyderabad. The writ petitioner submitted explanation

that the criminal case was filed by his wife due to some

misunderstanding which was later on compromised and they

got married on 16.07.2018. They were living peacefully and

have been blessed with a female child. At the time of

submission of attestation form, the said case was not pending.

He was acquitted. Therefore, he requested respondent No.2 to

consider his explanation and allow him to join the training.

Vide order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Chairman,

Telangana State Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad, the

appellant, his provisional selection was cancelled. Being

aggrieved, he preferred Writ Petition No.23157 of 2020. The

learned writ Court decided the case in his favour by holding as

under:

4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

"7. As seen from the above, the circumstances of the case have to be looked into by the employer before taking a decision. The judgment of the Sessions Court reveals that both the complainant and the petitioner were known to each other for a considerable period of time and were moving together. It is alleged that the petitioner had promised to marry the complainant.

Ultimately, the petitioner married the complainant and they are now living happily together. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there are no other negative reports about the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that when the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Courts, the non-mentioning of the criminal case, in which the petitioner was involved in the attestation form is not a grave offence and the respondent ought to have considered that there are no other negative reports about the character of the petitioner except for involvement in the said criminal case. Taking the same into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents ought not to have cancelled the provisional selection of the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memorandum dated 04.12.2020 is set aside. The respondents are directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioner on the basis of his merit in the selection process and send him for training with the next batch of trainees. The petitioner shall also be entitled to notional seniority but not arrears of pay, etc. There shall be no order as to costs."

Being aggrieved, the recruitment board has preferred this

appeal.

5 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

3. On the part of the appellant Board, it is submitted that

non-disclosure of information about the criminal case

amounted to suppression within the meaning of Clause 27 of

the advertisement dated 31.05.2018. The offences under

Sections 376, 417 of IPC instituted against the writ petitioner

were of heinous/serious nature. The writ petitioner has not got

an order of clean acquittal. The acquittal is on the basis of

compromise after the victim and the writ petitioner got

married. In such cases, following the ratio rendered by the

Apex Court including that of Avtar Singh v. Union of India

and others 1, also referred to in the impugned order dated

04.12.2020, the appellant contended that suppression of

involvement in a crime in the attestation form is a

disqualification as per Rule 3G (i) of the SCT Rules. The writ

petitioner was involved in a case of moral turpitude. Therefore,

his case deserves no consideration. It is submitted that the writ

Court committed an error in allowing Writ Petition No.23157

of 2020.

(2016) 8 SCC 471 6 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the

application form did not contain such a prescribed column

under the advertisement dated 31.05.2018 to disclose the

pendency of criminal case. The writ petitioner was

provisionally selected. He was acquitted on 03.09.2019 by the

competent Court on the basis of a compromise arrived at with

his wife, the complainant. The attestation form was filled up

after his acquittal, on 07.10.2019. At that point of time, there

was no criminal case pending against him. Therefore, he ticked

the column 'No' against Clause 11 of the attestation form.

There is no deliberate suppression of any pending criminal

case as against him in the attestation form. The Chairman of

the recruitment board has gone to examine the merits of the

order of acquittal that the writ petitioner had not been granted

clean acquittal. There was no occasion for the Chairman of the

recruitment board to examine the nature of acquittal granted in

favour of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the writ

petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Writ

Appeal No.902 of 2023 vide judgment dated 13.09.2023. It is

submitted that in the said case, the petitioner was acquitted by 7 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

way of compromise before Lok Adalat. The learned Court

after taking note of the decision of the Avtar Singh's case

opined that there is a duty cast on the employer to verify the

antecedents by duly taking into account the fact that the

compromise was recorded by the Lok Adalat. In the said case,

no instant verification was made except trying to interpret that

the compromise entered into before the Lok Adalat is a clean

acquittal. It is submitted that the said judgment of this Court

was not interfered with by the Apex Court vide judgment dated

29.07.2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary

No.15079 of 2024. Therefore, the ratio of the said case should

also apply to the case of the present writ petitioner since he has

been acquitted on the basis of compromise before filling up the

attestation form. The learned writ Court therefore, rightly

allowed the Writ Petition and directed the appellant and

respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue appointment order in his

favour on the basis of his merit in the selection process. It was

also held that he should be entitled to notional seniority but not

arrears of pay. Therefore, the Writ Appeal should be

dismissed.

8 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

taken note of the relevant materials placed on record. We have

also perused the impugned order. We have also gone through

the decisions cited by rival parties supra. This is a case where

the writ petitioner had not informed the authorities about the

pendency of a criminal case in his attestation form which

required specific details about the involvement in any criminal

case such as the case number, the sections, the name of Police

Station, whether he was arrested, whether he has been

prosecuted by the police, and if convicted, whether such

conviction has been sustained in the Court of appeal or set

aside. The writ petitioner therefore cannot claim ignorance of

an important clause in the attestation form which required

details of criminal case in which he was involved were to be

disclosed. It was only during the course of verification of his

antecedents, the employer came to know about such a case

having been instituted against him under Sections 376, 417 of

IPC. The offence of rape is definitely of a heinous/serious

nature. The parties may have entered into compromise which

resulted in his acquittal on 03.09.2019 apparently during the 9 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

process of recruitment. It was therefore incumbent upon the

candidate to have disclosed this information, in the attestation

form, failure of which would amount to suppression of a vital

information to his employer. The writ petitioner was a

candidate for recruitment to a police force i.e., a disciplined

force which requires responsibility, maintenance and enforcing

law and order in the society. In Avtar Singh's case, the Apex

Court has summarized its conclusion on this issue at para 38 of

the judgment which is profitably quoted hereunder.

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize 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 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.

10 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

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.

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.

11 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

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 12 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

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."

6. A perusal of para 38.4.3 would show that even if an

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 take

appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

7. In the present case, the offence of rape is definitely of a

heinous/serious nature. The writ petitioner's acquittal is based

on a compromise. The appellant employer has during the

course of verification been informed about the pendency of a

criminal case against him. It was the duty of the writ petitioner

to have disclosed the relevant information in the attestation

form when he was provisionally selected. In the light of

Clause 27 of the advertisement and also Rule 3(G) (i) of SCT

Rules, the non-disclosure of these proceedings definitely 13 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J

amounted to a case of suppression of information. The learned

writ Court therefore fell in error in allowing the Writ Petition

on the basis of the compromise entered into between the

parties since they were happily married. It appears on perusal

of the judgment dated 13.09.2023 in Writ Appeal No.902 of

2023, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent

herein, that the writ petitioner had duly informed the

department that he was earlier involved in a criminal case,

C.C.No.100 of 2009, on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Thorrur. The case was registered for the offences

under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427 and 188 of IPC wherein he

was acquitted by way of compromise before the Lok Adalat.