SAMALA ANJANEYULU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 31-12-2015 recruitment notification was issued to recruit candidates to the post of SCTPC AR in police department. The scheme of examination comprises of Preliminary Written Test, Physical Measurement Test, Physical Efficiency Test and final selection based on written examination. Petitioner applied for the said post. Petitioner was successful in the written examinations as well as physical efficiency test and based on his performance, he was selected provisionally. After including his name in the provisional selection list, show cause notice was issued on 06-04- 2017 to the petitioner alleging that during verification it was found that Cr.No.82 of 2013 was registered against him and later charge sheet was filed and criminal Court took cognizance as SC.No.107 of 2016. Petitioner submitted written explanation explaining about pendency of crime and that he did not suppress the fact of his involvement in criminal case. Against cancellation of provisional selection by order 03-07-2017, petitioner filed WP.No.28456 of 2017. This writ petition along with few other writ petitions were considered and by common judgment dated 06-12-2017 allowed the writ petitions directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in terms of guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Avatar Singh v. Union of India, 2016 8 SCC 471. In W.A.No.833 of 2018, the Division Bench slightly modified the order of learned Single Judge. After the judgment by Division Bench, the case of the petitioner was considered and by order dated 31-07-2019 his provisional selection as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee police constable in Armed Reserve was cancelled. Reason assigned for cancelling provisional selection was that he was acquitted on benefit of doubt in the criminal case and therefore it is not a clean acquittal and petitioner is not entitled to be appointed as Cadet Trainee.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned decision to cancel the provisional selection is erroneous. It is not the case of suppression of material fact. Petitioner disclosed his involvement in criminal case and ultimately said criminal case ended in acquittal and therefore, 3rd respondentboard erred in cancelling his provisional selection. She would submit that since petitioner was acquitted it cannot be said any more that he was involved in case of moral turpitude. She would further submit that it is not correct to contend that petitioner was acquitted on benefit of doubt. On thorough assessment of evidence on record, the finding was recorded holding that petitioner is not guilt of charges levelled against him and was discharged.

(3.) According to learned Standing Counsel petitioner's involvement was in grave offence and subsequent acquittal is of no relevance as he was involved in crime attracting moral turpitude. Thus as per the recruitment notification and Rule 3 (G) it is a disqualification and therefore, Board has taken right decision in disqualifying the petitioner. Moreover as acquittal was not on merits but only on benefit of doubt, his involvement in a case of moral turpitude cannot be ruled out. He would submit that as held by Division bench in W.A.No.833 of 2018 respondent board is competent to consider the scope of Rule 3(G) read with directions/conclusions recorded by Supreme Court in Avatar Singh and accordingly petitioner is not entitled to be appointed.