THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

+ WRIT PETITION NO: 19417/2012

% 24.07.2024

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh & 3 others

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

M.Koti Reddy

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S): M. Srinivasa Rao

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ramachangeswara Rao Kocherlakota,

represented Sri R.S.Murthy

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

(2011) 4 SCC 644

2024 SCC OnLine SC 180

(2016) 8 SCC 471

MANU/AP/0885/2024

(2011) 14 SCC 709

2022 SCC OnLine SC 532

(2019) 17 SCC 696

(2023) 7 SCC 536

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

WRIT PETITION NO: 19417/2012

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 24.07.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be

allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals

Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the Judgment?

Yes/No

___________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

________________

NYAPATHY VIJAY,J

APHC010150172012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 19417/2012

Between:

Govt.of Ap,prl.scy,home,hyd,

M Koti Reddy Prakasam Dist

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.

GP FOR SERVICES I

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

R SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Court made the following:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 19417/2012

Govt.of Ap,prl.scy,home,hyd,& 2 and Others

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

M Koti Reddy Prakasam Dist

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

Counsel for the Respondent:

R SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

The Court made the following:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3470]

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

...PETITIONER(S)

...RESPONDENT

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

W.P.No.19417 of 2012

ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

Heard Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services – I and Sri Ramachangeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned counsel

representing Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent – M. Kotireddy, applied for the post of SCT PC (A.R.)

(Men) from Prakasam District pursuant to the notification issued by petitioner

No.2 herein. On 20.04.2011, petitioner No.3 herein issued proceedings

cancelling his provisional selection on the ground that he had suppressed the

fact of the involvement in the criminal case in the attestation form. The

Criminal case was registered under Section 324 IPC arising out of Crime

No.11/2010 of Chinaganjam Police Station. The police after investigation filed

charge sheet and the same was taken on the file as C.C.No.264 of 2010 by

the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chirala.

3. Challenging the said memo of cancellation, the respondent filed

OA.No.7000 of 2011 which has been allowed by Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad vide order dated 19.01.2012.

4. The operative portion of the order dated 19.01.2012 reads as under:

“14. In the above circumstances, the orders passed by the respondents cancelling

the selection of the applicant for the post of SCTPC (AR) (Men) is liable to be set

aside and is accordingly set aside. The OA is accordingly allowed. The

respondents are directed to send the applicant for SCTPC(AR)(Men) training by

issuing selection order.”

5. Challenging the order dated 19.01.2012, the writ petition has been filed.

6. The Tribunal has allowed the petition on the ground that proceeding of

the criminal case was challenged in CRL.P.No.13712 of 2010 before this

Court which was allowed on 31.12.2010 and the proceeding in C.C.No.264 of

2010 was quashed. The respondent was discharged by the Court concerned.

It also observed that on the date the application was submitted by the

respondent there was no criminal case against him but at the time the

attestation form was filed, there was the case filed under Section 324 IPC,

which was not disclosed in the attestation form. The Tribunal placed reliance

in Commissioner of Police V. Sandeep Kumar

1

in which it was held that

the offence was not of serious nature, mere non mention would not

automatically disqualify. In such cases a more lenient view should be taken.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader raised the only submission that

there was non-disclosure of the criminal case and the same being correct,

there was no illegality in the cancellation memo. The Tribunal ought not to

have interfered with the same.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order on the strength

of Sandeep kumar (1

st

supra).

1

(2011) 4 SCC 644

9. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the

material on record.

10. The law on the subject of non-disclosure of criminal case in the

attestation form and its effect on the selection/appointment is well settled. We

may refer the recent pronouncement in Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P.

2

11. In Ravindra Kumar (2

nd

supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court observed

and held that 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. It was emphasized,

referring to the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India

3

,

that 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.

2

2024 SCC OnLine SC 180

3

(2016) 8 SCC 471

12. In Government of AP, Prl. Scy, Home, Hyderabad and ors., vs.

Vadde Pavan Kumar Anantapur Dist & ors

4

, this Court after referring to

the Ravindra Kumar (2

nd

supra) observed and held in paras 26 to 28 as

under:

“26. To consider the first submission of the learned GP, we would refer to

the recent judgment in Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court observed that ‘the vexed question is back again’. “Is it a hard and fast

and a cut and dried rule that, in all circumstances, non-disclosure of a criminal

case (in which the candidate is acquitted) in the verification form is fatal for the

candidate’s employment?

27. In Ravindra Kumar (supra) on consideration of various previous

pronouncements including Larger Bench Judgment in the case of Avtar Singh v.

Union of India

5

, Ram Kumar v. State of U.P.

6

, Pawan Kumar v. Union of India

7

,

Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra

8

and Satish Chandra Yadav v.

Union of India

9

, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held that 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. It was observed that in

Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) even the broad principles set out therein

recognize that each case should be scrutinized thoroughly by the public employer

concerned and the Court is obliged to examine whether the procedure of enquiry

adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable. The Hon’ble Apex

Court referred the case of Avtar Singh (supra), that while passing the order of

cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take

4

MANU/AP/0885/2024

5

(2016) 8 SCC 471

6

(2011) 14 SCC 709

7

2022 SCC OnLine SC 532

8

(2019) 17 SCC 696

9

(2023) 7 SCC 536

notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information,

and further, the principle that in case of suppression or false information of

involvement of criminal case, where acquittal has already been recorded, the

employer can still consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may

take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. The emphasis

was laid that though the 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 the facts of the cases.

28. Paragraph-21 of Ravindra Kumar (supra) is as follows:

“21. The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court

in Avtar Singh (Supra). Paras 34, 35, 36 & 38, which sets out the conclusions,

are extracted herein below:—

“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 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.

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)”

13. In Sandeep Kumar (1

st

supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and

held as under:

“………

As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are often

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

that he was involved in a criminal case under section 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."

14. With respect to Sandeep Kumar (1

st

supra) also it was observed in

paragraphs 23 and 24 of Ravindra Kumar (2

nd

supra) as under:

“23. Avtar Singh (Supra) also noticed the judgment in Commissioner of

Police v. Sandeep Kumar. In Sandeep Kumar (supra), this Court set out the story

of the character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, where the

character was branded as a thief for stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family.

It also discussed the classic judgment of Lord Denning in Morris v. Crown

Office, [1970] 2 Q.B. 114 and concluded as follows:—

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.”

“24. Thereafter, in Avtar Singh (supra) dealing with Sandeep Kumar (supra), this

Court observed as under:

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 Q.B. 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.”

15. So, it is well settled that Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a

disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being

completely oblivious to the ground realities. Each case will depend on the

facts and of its own case.

16. In the present case we find that firstly at the time, the respondent

applied for the post by submitting the application form there was no criminal

case against him. The criminal case under Section 324 IPC was quashed by

this Court in Crl.P.No.13712 of 2010 vide order dated 31.12.2010. The

respondent was then discharged by the Court concerned. There is no dispute

raised to the above facts. The nature of the offence is also not serious. After

the discharge and quashing of the proceedings by this Court, the case of the

respondent stands on a better footing than acquittal.

17. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal.

18. The writ petition is dismissed.

19. The petitioners are directed to complete the process within a period of

two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

____________________

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Dated: 24.07.2024

Note: L.R. copy be marked

B/o.

AG

184

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 19417/2012

Dated: 24.07.2024

Note: L.R. copy be marked

B/o.

AG