APHC010181642013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13674 of 2013 Between: B. Simhachalam, Srikakulam Dist ...PETITIONER AND Director General C R P F New Delhi And 3 Ot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J M NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI ( CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. 12812/N V RAMANUJAM(SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT ) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The respondent No.4-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad, issued notification, inviting applications for the post of Constable in the year 2010. In pursuance of the notification, the petitioner herein applied for the said post and he was found selected for the said post provisionally as Constable (GD) in C.R.P.F. in Pay Band-I (5200-20200) with other emoluments, vide proceedings No.R.II-1/2010-11-GCH-EC-5, dated 12.03.2011. 2. The petitioner was terminated vide proceedings No.D.II.I/2011- GC.EC.II dated 31.12.2011 with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month from the date on which the notice is served on, or, as the case may be, tendered to him, on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the fact of his involvement in criminal case while filling up the verification roll and by mentioning “NO” in Column No.12(b). As per the existing roll, suppression of such facts/information in verification roll would be a disqualification and rendered the candidate as unfit in the Government Department. 3. Aggrieved by the termination order dated 31.12.2011, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2- Inspector General of Police, Central Sector, C.R.P.F., Bibuthi Khand, Gomatinagar, Lucknow. In the appeal preferred to the respondent No.2, the petitioner herein has asserted that he was involved in a criminal case, vide Crime No.17 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 509 read with Section 34 I.P.C. of Veeraghattam Police Station, 3 Srikakulam District and he was arraigned as accused and a false complaint was given by neighbours and the accused and the complainant used to fight each other for the petty matters. On 26.03.2010, when one Chinnammadu was cleaning the house premises, there was dispute regarding extension of eaves from the house of the accused, which were got cut at the instance of the complainant and the accused/A1 went to the house of P.W.1 and caught hold of tuft of hair and dashed her head towards cement pail causing bleeding injuries and accused/A2, who is the petitioner herein beat her with stick on her forehead and accused/A3 beat her with hands when P.W.2-Manyam Venkata Laxmi intervened, she was also beaten by them. On filing the charge sheet, a criminal case was registered vide C.C.No.141 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda, and the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and directed to pay an amount of Rs.200/- as fine. 4. The said fact of involvement in criminal case was suppressed by the petitioner. While the petitioner was undergoing basic training at RTC-NMH, said verification Roll along with report of the District Collector was sent to the Principal, RTC-Neemuch, C.R.P.F., Madhya Pradesh by GC, Hyderabad, by a letter No.V.I-3/2011-EC-5-GCH dated 26.11.2011, intimating that the above individual had concealed the facts regarding his involvement in the aforesaid case while filing up the verification Roll and by mentioning “NO” in Column No.12(b). 5. Dissatisfied with the grounds raised by the petitioner herein, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal, vide Rule 5(2)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, vide order dated 17.07.2012. 4 Against the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred a Revision before the Director General of Police, C.R.P.F., New Delhi. The respondent No.1-Director General of Police has forwarded the Revision vide proceedings dated 11.09.2012 to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the plea of the petitioner herein considering the acquittal order dated 28.05.2012, in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2012. 6. The Revision was taken up by the respondent No.2 and has rejected the same indicating that the powers vested in HOD, i.e., IGP under Rule-5(2) of CCS (Temporary) Service Rules, 1965, has already been exercised and appeal is rejected vide office order dated 17.07.2012 and there is no provision after rejection of appeal by HOD. The Revision was not considered in view of the orders dated 28.05.2012 of the respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal. 7. The said order was assailed in the present Writ Petition, on the ground that the Revision before the respondent No.2 ought to have been treated as appeal itself and the petitioner’s case ought to have been reconsidered by respondent No.2 in view of the acquittal order passed by the Appellate Court and on other grounds. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order of rejection and to re-consider the case of the petitioner in pursuance of the remand order dated 11.09.2012 of the respondent No.1. Consequently, prayed to set aside the termination order dated 31.12.2011 and to reinstate the petitioner as Constable (GD) in C.R.P.F. 8. Though the grounds raised by the petitioner are not valid grounds to set aside the impugned termination order dated 31.12.2011, this 5 Court relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India1. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh’s case held in paragraph Nos.34, 35, 36 and 38 set 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 1 (2016) 8 SCC 471 6 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 7 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 8 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) 9 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar2 held in the following manner: "It is true in the application form the respondent (delinquent) did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 I.P.C. 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, decoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter." 10. More recently, in Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India3 it is held that involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this Court, after noticing Avtar Singh’s case (1 supra) held as 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 2 (2011) 4 SCC 644 3 (2023) 12 SCC 317 10 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." 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down principles in Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India4 and following crucial paragraph in Avtar Singh’s case (1 supra) reproduced hereunder: "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." 4 (2023) 7 SCC 536 11 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court also examined the judgment in State of T.N. Vs. J.Raghunees5 find that the case of the appellant therein is more aligned with the facts in the judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar’s case (3 supra), Sandeep Kumar’s case (2 supra) and Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P.6 Hence, this Court find that the judgment in J.Raghunees’s case (5 supra) stated that they are distinguishable. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others7, after considering the aforesaid judgments has set out special features which are extracted hereunder at hand: "33.1. The appellant hails from the small Village Bogapar, PO Kataura, Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, U.P. 33.2. On the date of the application, there was no criminal case pending and there was no suppression in the application form. 33.3. The criminal case was registered when he was 21 years of age for the offences very similar to the one referred to in Sandeep Kumar case and even in the criminal case he was acquitted. 33.4. No doubt, the multiple columns in the verification affidavit, questions were asked from him in different permutations and combinations. He must have been in a 5 (2023) 16 SCC 647 6 (2011) 14 SCC 709 7 (2024) 5 SCC 264 12 deep dilemma as there was an imminent prospect of losing his employment. 33.5. Most importantly, we find from the verification documents fairly and candidly made available by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the verification report after noticing the criminal case and the subsequent acquittal stated that his character was good, that no complaints were found against him and that his general reputation was good. 33.6. Not stopping there, the person who visited the spot even wished him a bright future in the report. 33.7. The SHO, Gauri Bazar Police Station, who forwarded the report to the Superintendent of Police after reiterating the contents of the report observed that he was acquitted and no appeal was filed. Further, there was no other case pending and nor was any case registered against the candidate. 33.8. The SHO certified the character of the candidate as excellent and that he was eligible to do Government Service under the State Government. He annexed the report of the Police Station as well as the report of the Gram Pradhan and the Court documents. 33.9. The Superintendent of Police, in his letter to the Commandant, endorsed the report and reiterated that the character of the candidate was excellent. 13 33.10. While examining whether the procedure adopted for enquiry by the authority was fair and reasonable, we find that the order of cancellation of 12.04.2005 does not even follow the mandate prescribed in Clause 4 of the Form of verification of character set out in the earlier part of this judgment. Like it was found in Ram Kumar (supra) instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment, the Appointing Authority has mechanically held his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit with incorrect facts. Hence, even applying the broad principles set out in para 93.7 of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), we find that the order of cancellation dated 12.04.2005 is neither fair nor reasonable. Clause 9 of the recruitment notification has to be read in the context of the law laid down in the cases set out hereinabove." 14. As seen from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh’s case (1 supra), a case in moral turpitude or offence of heinous/ serious nature, or the criminal case is ended on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee and it is a ground to reject the case. 15. As seen from the present case, the petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and the Appellate Court (i.e., the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge’s 14 Court, Srikakulam the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge’s Court, Srikakulam), in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2012, while allowing the Criminal Appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner in C.C.No.141 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are interested witnesses and their evidence is not supported by any independent witnesses. Accordingly, allowed the Criminal Appeal. If the principle as enunciated in Avtar Singh’s case (1 supra) is applied herein, there is no such moral turpitude involved in the case. The moral turpitude refers to the moral dispossession or inclination of man’s nature towards evil or good. As seen from the allegations against the petitioner, no moral turpitude involved against the petitioner herein. 16. As held by the Sandeep Kumar’s case (2 supra), the petitioner might have been fear, if he did so, he would automatically be disqualified. But there is no such deliberate suppression of fact in the form column No.12(b) intentionally while filling up verification roll. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents filed their counter and it is stated that under column No.12(b), the fact of involvement in criminal case was suppressed by the petitioner or concealed in the affidavit filed by the candidate that the candidature will be liable for cancellation. The counter contents exclusively comprised the termination order pertaining to the writ petitioner. 15 18. In view of the legal position as set out in the Ravindra Kumar’s case (7 supra) and Avtar Singh’s case (1 supra), if any accusation that involves moral turpitude, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. The accusation reveals that there is dispute between the neighbours concerning the extension of eaves from the house of the accused into the complainant’s property. The said incident does not indicate any moral turpitude to suppress the criminal case intentionally and the accusation is very trivial in nature pertains removal of extension of eaves. 19. Learned counsel for writ petitioner has relied on the orders of this Court in W.P.No.17798 of 2013 and an order in W.P.No.33306 of 2012. In both the cases, the High Court has upheld the findings of the Administrative Tribunal, directing the respondents to evaluate the cases of the employees involved under similar circumstances after considering the judgment in Avatar Singh’s case (1 supra), determined that terminating the employee solely for failing to disclose information about involvement in a criminal case of which the employee was acquitted was unjust. Additionally, referencing the judgment in Satish Chandra Yadav’s case (4 supra) and citing a pertinent paragraph from the Avatar Singh’s case (1 supra), the Bench stated that while an individual who withholds material information cannot claim an unrestricted right to appointment, it is also imperative that such decisions are not made arbitrarily. The exercise of authority must be conducted reasonably and objectively, taking into account the specific facts of the case. 20. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not involved in 16 any heinous or serious offence and it is a trivial in nature and the rejection of appeal by the respondent No.2 is unsustainable. As such, this Court is inclined to set aside the termination order dated 31.12.2011 and this Court directs the respondents herein to reconsider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement into the post of Constable (GD) in C.R.P.F. However, in the event of joining into service, the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages, the period out of service shall be treated as in service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits, if the provisions or Rules of the C.R.P.F. provides such Petition. 21. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 02.05.2025 siva 17 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.13674 of 2013 Date: 02.05.2025 siva