Date of reserved for judgment: 09.03.2026

Date of pronounced : 06.05.2026

Date of uploading : 06.05.2026

APHC010554992025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3565]

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1364/2025

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the Order

of Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. (AT) No. 22 of 2021 by allowing the

present Writ Appeal.

Between:

1. DODLA PENCHALAIAH, S/O. PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37

YEARS, R/O. KAMAKSHI COLONY, BUCCHIREDDYPALEM, SPSR

NELLORE DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH,

AMARAVATI - 522 502

2. THE STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, ANDHRA

PRADESH., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. - 522 502

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT,

NELLORE-524001.

4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATI.- 522 237

...RESPONDENT(S):

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

2

Condone the delay of 69 days in filing the e accompanying Writ Appeal

against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in W.P.(A.T.) No.22 of 2021,

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

stay the operation and effect of the Order, dated 30.04.2025 passed in

W.P.(A.T.) No.22 of 2021, by directing the respondents authorities to reserve

one post of Police Constable (Civil) - 2008 (II) for the petitioner, pending

disposal of this Writ Appeal

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

WRIT APPEAL No.1364 of 2025

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 30.04.2025

passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(AT) No.22 of 2021.

2. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the

Writ Petition for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard Mr.V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the

respondents and carefully perused the material available on record.

4. Case of the petitioner:

(i) The petitioner is belonging to a Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) community. He

applied for recruitment to the post of Police Constable pursuant to the

notification-2008 (2) of State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra

Pradesh. He appeared for the preliminary test (preliminary selection test of 5

km run) conducted in the month of March 2009 and he was qualified.

Thereafter, he appeared and qualified in Physical Measurement Test

conducted on 16.07.2009. Written examination was conducted on 13.09.2009.

He also participated in Physical Efficiency Test (PET) performance (men) in

various categorized tests and he was qualified.

4

(ii) In the village of the petitioner, there were political groups which

were frequently making complaints against each other. The petitioner has no

role either in the politics or in the village affairs. He is searching for

employment. He was informed through his family members that on 03.01.2010

at about 15-00 hours, an altercation was took place between the revenue

officials i.e., Mandal Surveyor, Buchireddypalem; the Village Revenue Officer,

Bit-II; one Seenaiah and others. On 03.01.2010, basing on the complaint, a

case in Crime No.4 of 2010 was registered for the offence under Section 323

r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Seenaiah and others. Except the

petitioner, all his friends were implicated in the said crime, who are

agriculturists. Again on the same day, another crime i.e., Crime No. 6 of 2010

was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427

r/w 149 Indian Penal Code against Seenaiah and others including the

petitioner herein, who implicated as Accused No.13. The defacto complainant

in Crime No.6 of 2010 is inimically disposed towards the petitioner’s family

and knowing the fact that the petitioner was selected in the police constable

recruitment, he was implicated in the second case as afterthought. Though

there is no offence attributable against the petitioner, a charge sheet was filed

in C.C.No.107 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kovur. The petitioner was informed that he would not be considered for

training due to pendency of the charge sheet.

(iii) The petitioner is advised that pending criminal case, he cannot

prohibit undergoing for training and accordingly, the petitioner approached the

5

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1381 of 2013. During

pendency of the said O.A., the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.107 of 2010

on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, by its

judgment, dated 19.03.2014. At that stage, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous

Application in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 seeking direction to send him for training

due to closure of the criminal case against him. The Tribunal by order, dated

15.09.2014 directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s

request for training keeping in view of the acquittal in criminal case. Pursuant

to the said order, the petitioner’s case was examined and 2

nd

respondent

issued speaking order vide Memo in Rc.No.114/R&T/Admin.2/ 2013, dated

22.12.2014 rejecting the request of the petitioner to send him for training.

Subsequently, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was dismissed for default by order, dated

24.06.2016 by the Administrative Tribunal. Seeking to set aside the dismissed

for default order, the petitioner filed M.A.No.1675 of 2016 and it was dismissed

on 24.10.2017. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order, dated 24.06.2016 has

dismissed the O.A. No.1381 of 2013.

(iv) Against the order, dated 24.06.2016 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the

petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21470 of 2019. A Division

Bench of this Court by its order, dated 03.01.2020 set aside the order, dated

24.10.2017 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in M.A.No.1675 of

2016 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013 and restored the O.A. to its file subject to

payment of costs. Thereafter, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was restored to its file.

After abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the O.A.No.1381

6

of 2013 was transferred to this High Court and it was renumbered as W.P.(AT)

No.22 of 2021. After hearing, the learned single Judge of this Court was

pleased to dismiss the same by order, dated 13.04.2025. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner filed this Writ Appeal.

5. The case of the respondents:-

(i) Pursuant to the notification issued by the Chairman, State Level

Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh in Rc.No.670/R&T/Genl.2/2008,

dated 30.12.2008 (2) for filling up the posts of SCT PCs and equivalent ranks.

The petitioner applied for the post of SCT PC (Civil, AR and APSP) etc. He

participated in the selection process and provisionally selected to the post of

SCT PC (Civil) (Men) in Nellore District. During antecedents verification, it

came to light that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.6

of 2010 registered on 03.01.2010 for the offences under Sections 147, 148,

452, 323, 324, 427 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code of Butchireddypalem Police

Station as Accused No.13. The case was charge sheeted on 16.02.2010.

Subsequently, the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur in its

judgment, dated 19.03.2014 acquitted the petitioner under Section 248(1) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(ii) It is mentioned at paras 21 and 22 of the notification stating that no

person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment

unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority

that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service.

7

Suppression of material facts or withholding any factual information either in

the application or in the attestation form (which would be supplied to the

candidates who will be provisionally selected) will disqualify the candidate

from being considered 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 giving any notice.

(iii) Further as per Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the A.P. State & Subordinate

Service Rules, 1996, no person shall be eligible for appointment to any

service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well

as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to

qualify him for such service.

(iv) Para 3(F) of G.O.Ms.No.97 of Home (Legal.II) Department, dated

01.05.2006, it is stated that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any

service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well

as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to

qualify him for such service.

(v) The petitioner has submitted the attestation form on 23.12.2010. A

case was registered against the petitioner on 03.01.2010 and charge sheeted

on 16.02.2010 and he got acquitted on 19.03.2014. It clearly indicates that the

petitioner’s case was pending trial when he submitted the attestation form. He

was deliberately suppressed the fact of his involvement in criminal case by not

8

mentioning the details of criminal case in column No.16 of the attestation form.

He also signed the declaration stating that he was fully aware that furnishing

of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation

form would be a disqualification and likely to render him unfit for employment

under the Government. In view of the same, his case was not considered for

appointment as Police Constable and order of cancellation of selection was

issued on 29.04.2011. By order, dated 15.09.2014 in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 in

O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the

respondent authority to consider the request of the petitioner to send him for

training keeping in view of his acquittal in criminal case. The request of the

petitioner has been considered once again keeping in view of his acquittal in

the said criminal case and it was rejected vide Memo, dated 22.12.2014. The

rejection order is in accordance with the relevant rules and as per the

decisions of the Apex Court.

6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

(i) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere

suppression of certain information of trivial nature does not disentitle the

petitioner for being considered for appointment to the post of police constable.

Taking into fact that the case was ended in acquittal, a lenient view should

have been taken. The learned counsel would submit that the request of the

petitioner to send for training pursuant to the order, dated 24.06.2016 of the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, rejected by order, dated 22.12.2014

9

without considering it objectively and reasonably. The learned counsel submits

that the petitioner became a scapegoat in the village politics at the behest of

the trivial. The petitioner hails from a poor family and with his hard work, he

provisionally selected as Police Constable. The learned counsel further

submits that only due to fear of loss of job in the event of disclosing the case,

the petitioner did not mention the same in the attestation form. The learned

counsel contends that except registration of this case, prior to that or after

that, there is no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner and no

complaints are there. Taking into consideration of the same, the learned single

judge ought to have allowed the writ petition in the light of the decisions of the

Apex Court in identical matters.

7. Submissions of the learned Government Pleader appearing for

respondents:

The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents contends

that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the truth and as such the

competent authority has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner basing on

the observations of the Apex Court. He further contends that the acquittal is

not a honourary acquittal after full pledged trial and after considering the

whole evidence holding him in such offence is committed or proved but the

acquittal is based on hostility of the prosecution witnesses. The learned

Government Pleader submits that the case against the petitioner and counter

case arisen on the same day as case and counter case due to attack by one

10

party against the other and therefore mere acquittal based on the hostile

evidence cannot be treated as a clean acquittal. He further contends that the

case against the petitioner is not a trivial offence, but it is a grave offence.

Therefore, it is not a fit case to appoint the petitioner as a Police Constable

which job involves maintenance of law and order. He further contends that

when the State has a choice to appoint a person of good character, State

should not choose person whose character is dubious and objectionable.

Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader would submit that Rule 12 of

the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 vests wide

amplitude powers to deny employment based on antecedents in addition to

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules, 1999. Accordingly, he would submit that

there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge and

interference of the same is not required.

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and upon

careful examination of the material available on record, the following admitted

facts are emerged for consideration:

(a) The petitioner submitted application for the post of Police Constable

pursuant to the notification, dated 13.12.2008.

(b) The petitioner participated in the selection process and provisionally

selected to the post of Police Constable in Nellore District.

11

(c) A case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2010, dated 03.10.2010 of

Butchireddypalem Police Station and the petitioner was implicated as Accused

No.13 and the said case was charge sheeted on 16.02.2010.

(d) The petitioner has submitted the attestation form on 23.12.2010.

(e) The petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment,

dated 13.03.2014 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur.

(f) The provisional selection of the petitioner as Police Constable was

cancelled by order, dated 29.04.2011.

(g) The petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1381 of 2013.

(h) On 15.09.2014 in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to

consider the request of the petitioner for sending for training in view of his

acquittal in criminal case. Pursuant to the said order, the request of the

petitioner has been considered and it was rejected vide Memo, dated

22.12.2014.

(i) Thereafter, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was dismissed for default by order,

dated 24.06.2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and it was

restored to its file pursuant to the order, dated 03.10.2020 in W.P.No.21470 of

2019 of a Division Bench by this Court. Subsequently, due to abolition of the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the said O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was

12

transferred to this High Court and it was renumbered as W.P.(AT) No.22 of

2021.

(j) The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said W.P. (AT)

No.22 of 2021 by order, dated 13.04.2025.

9. In this factual position, the issues that arise for consideration before this

Court are:

(1) Whether the State was justified in cancelling the provisional selection

of the appellant/petitioner as Police Constable vide order, dated

29.04.2011 and the Memo No.114/R&T/Admn.2/2013, dated 22.12.2014?

(2) To what relief, is the appellant/petitioner entitled to?

10. In fact, the law on this issue is settled by the Apex Court in the case of

Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar

1

; Avtar Singh

Vs. Union of India and others

2

and in the latest judgment of the Apex Court

in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others

3

.

11. In Sandeep Kumar’s case (1 supra), the Apex Court made thoughtful

observations in the light of the classic judgment in Morris v. Crown Office

4

while considering the story of the character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo’s

novel Les Miserables, where the character was branded as a thief for stealing

1

(2011) 4 SCC 644

2

(2016) 8 SCC 471

3

2024 INSC 131

4

(1970) 2 QB 114

13

a loaf of bread for his hungry family. The relevant observations extracted as

herein under:

“10… …

In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord

Denning.

11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which

are often condoned.

12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention

that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC.

Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would

automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious

offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view

should be taken in the matter.”

12. In Avtar Singh’s case (2 supra), in view of the observations in the

case of Sandeep Kumar (1 supra), the Apex Court made the following

observations:

“24… … This Court has observed that suppression related to a case

when the age of Sandeep Kumar was about 20 years. He was young and

at such age people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions

may often be condoned. The modern approach should be to reform a

person instead of branding him a criminal all his life. In [Morris v. Crown

Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 : (1970) 2 WLR 792 (CA)] , the observations

made were that young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no

violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were trying to preserve the

Welsh language. Though they have done wrong but we must show

mercy on them and they were permitted to go back to their studies, to

their parents and continue the good course.”

13. The relevant para Nos.34, 35, 36 and 38 in Avtar Singh’s case (2 supra)

are extracted herein under:

“34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is

one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to

employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action

14

should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all

relevant aspects.

35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is

suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The

employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in

exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the

services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the

material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or

continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and

exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having

due regard to facts of cases.

36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of

post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not

only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature

of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by

authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and

power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.

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 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.

15

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.”

(Emphasis supplied)

14. in Avtar Singh’s case (2 supra), the Apex Court has been clearly laid

down that though a person who has suppressed the material information

cannot claim unfettered right for appointment, he or she has a right not to be

16

dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of power has to be with objectivity and in a

reasonable manner taking into consideration the facts of the case.

15. In Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others

5

, the Apex Court

while granting relief in an identical facts, held as extracted herein under:

“9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 28-4-1958 on

the subject “Verification of the character and antecedents of government

servants before their first appointment” and it is stated in the government

order that the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following

instructions in supersession of all the previous orders:

“The rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the

State Government shall continue to be as follows:

The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to

render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post

to which he is to be appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing

authority to satisfy itself on this point.

xxxxxx

12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before

the court, PW 1, Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the court that

on 2-12-2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling and at that time the

appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had

reached there and someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the

scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick

platform and that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any

sharp weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the appellant,

the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the

charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it was not at all

possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was

not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable.

13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

had been sent along with the report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar

Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it

appears from the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Senior Superintendent of

Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether

the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of

constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the

selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not

5

(2011) 14 SCC 709

17

furnish in his affidavit in the pro forma of verification roll that a criminal

case has been registered against him.

14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated

28-4-1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police,

Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as

to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a

constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the

criminal case. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable

for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority

has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because

the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the

time of recruitment.

xxxxxx

17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of

the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench

and allow the writ petition of the appellant and quash the order dated 8-8-

2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant

will be taken back in service within a period of two months from today but

he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained

out of service. There shall be no order as to costs.”

16. In Pavan Kumar vs. Union of India and another

6

, the Apex Court held

as extracted herein under:

“11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to

participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct

information relating to his character and antecedents in the

verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is

also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material

information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right

of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right

not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised

by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity

having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without

saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to

adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of

post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be

considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no

hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.

13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that

by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact

whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the

6

(2022) SCC OnLine SC 532

18

employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from

service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of

suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if

any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and

circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the

objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while

taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the

employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere

suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean

that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from

service.

19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of

the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th November, 2015 and the

order of discharge dated 24

th

April, 2015 and dated 23

rd

December, 2021

are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to

reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable, on which he

was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment

notice no. 1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011. We make it clear that the

appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during

which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be

entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other

consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a

period of one month from today. No costs.”

17. In Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

7

, the Apex

Court made the following observation, as extracted herein under:

“5. Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our country.

Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited

number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for

grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious

questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly,

judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of

suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a

judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical

incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service

simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual

deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead

in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all

considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not

always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation

of a case.”

7

(2019) 17 SCC 696

19

18. The latest judgment in Ravindra Kumar’s case (3 supra), the Apex Court

held at paras 28 and 30 as extracted herein under:

“28. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case;

the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; the nature of the

query in the application/verification form; the contents of the character

verification reports; the socio economic strata of the individual applying;

the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of consideration and

the contents of the cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial

aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and

in determining the nature of relief to be ordered.”

30. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special

circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non-disclosure of the

unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the

scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do

not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every

non-disclosure as a disqualification will be unjust and the same will

tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining

in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the

facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to

take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available

precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all

scenario.”

19. In the light of the principles of law settled by the Apex Court as extracted

herein above, this Court has noted the following certain special features in the

present case:

(i) The petitioner hailed from the rural village of Nellore District and

belonged to downtrodden Section.

(ii) As on the date of the submitting the application for Police Constable

selection and as on the date of the provisional selection, no criminal case is

pending against him.

20

(iii) A criminal case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2010 and the

petitioner was shown as Accused No.13 on 03.01.2010.

(iv) In the small village of the petitioner, all are aware that the petitioner

was selected in the Police Constable recruitment and it can be assumed that

he was implicated in the said case as afterthought to damage his job

prospects.

(v) It is also an admitted fact that counter-cases are registered at that

time.

(vi) Admittedly, in the attestation form on 23.12.2010, the petitioner did

not mention about the pendency of the criminal case. This may be done due to

fear that he may lose the prospect of his employment.

(vii) The petitioner was acquitted by the learned Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Kovur by its judgment, dated 19.03.2014 holding that there

is no incriminating evidence to fasten guilty on accused and the prosecution

has failed to drive home the guilt of accused for the offences charged against

the petitioner by adducing convincing evidence.

(viii) It is very important to note that there is no criminal record against

the petitioner prior to registering the case in Crime No.6 of 2010 or subsequent

to that and the said fact was not considered by the competent authority while

cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner as Police Constable,.

21

(ix) The appointing authority without considering whether the petitioner

was suitable for appointment or not, in a casual manner cancelled the

petitioner’s provisional selection as Police Constable as per Service Rules and

some executive orders.

(x) The appointing authority without considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and under what circumstances, the petitioner was

implicated in a criminal case, has cancelled the provisional selection of the

petitioner as Police Constable arbitrarily and without exercising the power in a

reasonable manner with objectivity.

20. Analysis and finding:

1) In catena of Judgments, in addition to the Judgments stated supra, the

Supreme Court has adopted a realistic and pragmatic approach moving

away from the mechanical "automatic disqualification" stance. This

sensitive shift towards a more discretionary approach, considering each

such case as unique intertwined with various complex socio cultural

issues and background scenarios impacting the particular individual

cases distinctly.

2) Here is a breakdown of the key principles established in the cases cited

herewith:

Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024): The Court ruled that

an error in disclosure shouldn't be treated as a "fatal flaw" if the

underlying incident was trivial or resulted in an acquittal. It emphasised

that authorities must act fairly rather than mechanically cancelling a

candidacy.

3) Whereas Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016): is the landmark

"foundation" case.

22

It established that even if a candidate suppresses some piece of

information, the employer cannot terminate them arbitrarily. The

employer must consider the nature of the offence, the age of the

candidate at the time, and whether the person is fit for the specific post.

Probing the intent was emphasised in this judgement. If the suppression

was a "bona fide" mistake regarding a minor issue (like a quashed FIR

or a petty case), the candidate should not be deprived of their livelihood.

4) While the learned Single Judge likely focused on the technical "violation

of rules" (non-disclosure), the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that

a mechanical rejection without looking at the nature of the case is

"arbitrary and unjust."

5) Applying the "holistic view" approach adopted in recent Ravindra

Kumar’s case (3 supra) by the Apex Court, this case needs to be

considered positively.

6) In Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. (2024), the Supreme Court explicitly

stated that non-disclosure of a criminal case that ended in acquittal is

not always fatal for employment. The court must check if the

suppression was "wilful" or a "bona fide" mistake. The courts have

warned against "broad-brushing" every instance of non-disclosure as a

disqualification. The Andhra Pradesh High Court itself has noted that

such rigidness is "completely oblivious to ground realities" and each

case must be assessed on its own merits.

7) In Avtar Singh’s case, it was held that the employer must consider if the

offense involved moral turpitude. A local village feud in which tribal

factions approach police on trivial issues with case vs. counter-cases is

often considered and a local dispute rather than with a deep-seated

criminal character. The young man who was already got selected to a

police constable job may have been wantonly booked as an accused

23

after a dozen and odd names without his involving in any skirmish. The

petitioner was not involved in any other cases before or after this

particular case in which was acquitted later. This shows that his getting

an opportunity to become part of the law and order machinery was

wantonly tried to be obstructed by some local vested interests.

8) The "Triviality" of the nature of the offence he was made a party to, If

the young man was merely one of many accused (Accused No.13) in a

general tribal village scuffle, this is often viewed as a petty or trivial

matter that should not cost him his entire career. As deep rooted

genetic, epigenetic causes and impact of environmental circumstances

influence the opportunities and hurdles in an individual's career growth

path. The petitioner from a remote tribal family background shouldn't

lose the chance to serve the nation just because one small case in

which his name was remotely placed and later got acquitted.

9) While some of the elite people in society who are accused in several

grave criminal offences are facilitated to contest to the highest

legislative roles until they are held guilty, an ordinary educated tribal

youth shouldn't be denied an opportunity to serve the society as a

constable. If this opportunity is denied to him, he won't be eligible for

any such jobs in future which would push such lower rung marginalized

youth towards anti social violence spreading criminal groups. So in the

interest of the individual and society at large, considering the petitioner's

clean antecedents and conduct throughout this period of waiting, we

hold that the cancellation of provisional selection of the petitioner to the

post of Police Constable (Civil) is illegal, arbitrary and such order was

passed by the appointing authority without exercing power with

objectivity and in a reasonable manner and thus it is liable to be

quashed.

24

21. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal is allowed with the following

directions:

(1) The order, dated 30.04.2025 of the learned single Judge of this Court

in W.P.(AT) No.22 of 2021 is hereby set aside.

(2) The cancellation orders vide Memorandum Rc.No.691/R&T/Genl.2/

2020, dated 29.04.2011 and Memorandum Rc.No.114/R&T/Admn.2/2013 ,

dated 22.12.2014, issued by the 2

nd

respondent are hereby quashed.

(3) The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant/petitioner in

service for the post of Police Constable (Civil) for which he was provisionally

selected, pursuant to his participation in the selection process under

notification-2008(2) of State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh,

within a period of four (04) weeks from today.

(4) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for all notional benefits, including

pay, seniority and other consequential benefits.

(5) The appellant/petitioner is not entitled for the arrears of salary for the

period during which he is not served.

22. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________

JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

___________________________

JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

Dated: 06.05.2026

PGR

25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

&

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

WRIT APPEAL No.1364 of 2025

Dated: 06.05.2026

PGR