GOVERNMENT OF AP Vs. BOLUPANDRA KRISHNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the State of A.P., questioning the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in allowing the O.A. No.11566 of 2009 dated 27.1.2010, as illegal and to set aside the same.The writ petitioners are respondents before the tribunal. The first respondent/ applicant filed O.A. No. 11566 of 2009 questioning the endorsement in Rc.No. 250/ Al/2008 dated 20.10.2009 of the fifth petitioner herein/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakapatnam Range, Visakapatnam whereunder his provisional selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (for short SCT SI) was cancelled as per the orders issued in Fax Message Rc No. 413/R&T/Genl.l/09 dated 9.10.2009 of the second petitioner/ The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad (for short the Board) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to appoint him as SCT SI (Civil) (Men; in Zone-I.

(2.) The case of the first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as applicant) is that earlier in response to the notification issued in the year 2006 by the second petitioner, he applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police and was successful in both the written test, and medical test, however, in view of pendency of a criminal case in C.C. No. 279 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta, Srikakulam district, he did not pursue the selection proceedings. THEreafter, the second petitioner has issued another notification in Rc No. 165/R&T/Genl.l/2008 dated 6.6.2008 inviting applications for various posts in police department including 1135 posts of SCT- SI. THE applicant applied for the post of SCT-SI and was successful both in physical test and written test and was waiting for appointment order. While so, vide endorsement dated 20.10.2009 of the fifth petitioner, he was informed that his provisional selection to the post of SCT SI was cancelled as per the Fax Message dated 9.10.2009 of the second petitioner. THE fax message dated 9.10.2009 speaks about the involvement of the applicant in Crime No.40 of 2007 registered under Section 420 of IPC of Mandasa Police station with regard to cheating and collecting an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by promising to secure a job in Indian Army; that the acquittal of the fifth respondent in CC No. 279 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code by order dated 22.9.2008 is on technical grounds and due to lack of evidence; therefore it is not desirable that a person of such a nature is recruited in a department like the police. THE relevant portion of fax message 9.10.2009 reads as under;

(3.) Admittedly, pursuant to the notification dated 6.6.2008, the applicant has submitted his application on 25.2.2009 without suppressing or concealing any facts inasmuch as in column No.16 (Annexure I), he has furnished the details of Criminal Case in C.C. No. 279 of 2007 viz., the case number, year, name of the police station and district. It is his case that he has furnished all the details and after scrutiny of his application only, he was subjected to preliminary tests and he having succeeded therein was provisionally selected. He states that there are no other cases pending against him except the one where he was acquitted on merits by the competent Court after conducting regular trial. Therefore, the action of the writ petitioners in disqualifying him and cancelling his selection is illegal and arbitrary. In the case of Sushil Kumar (cited 2 supra), on verification of the antecedents of the respondent viz., Sushil Kumar, it was found that he was charged and /or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, as such his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable and accordingly his candidature was rejected, against which he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the said Original Application on the ground that the applicant was discharged/ acquitted and therefore he cannot be denied right of his appointment. The quection that was considered in the said case by the Supreme Court was whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct or not. The verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Merely because he was found fit and passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected but on account of antecedent record the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The said action of the department was upheld by the Supreme Court. We are of the opinion that the case in Sushil Kumar (cited 2 supra) does not relate to correct furnishing of the antecedents about the acquittal of the case. It is not known whether there was any suppression about the pendency of the criminal case which was said to have ended in acquittal later or whether there was any information furnished in the application form about the acquittal of the said case. But, however, the Supreme Court in the later judgment in Commissioner of Police, Delhi (cited 5 supra) distinguished the earlier judgment in Sushil Kumar case (cited 2 supra) on the ground that in Sushil Kumar case mistake committed by the applicant while furnishing the information was not at all corrected, that means in Sushil Kumar case, there was a suppression of fact about pendency of the criminal case. But in the case on hand, admittedly there is no suppression or concealment of material information about the criminal case which ended in acquittal and the applicant has furnished the relevant information in the application form itself.