I APHC010010502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 447 OF 2019 Between: P. D. Ranganath, S/o Ranganna, aged 41 years, Agricultural Extension Officer Gr.ll K.Markapuram (HA) Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. R/o. 81-261/4, Sriramchandranagar, Kallur, Kurnool district. PIN 518002. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Principal Secretary Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. 2. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool. 3. The Director of Agriculture, A.P., Old Mirch Yard, Nallapadu road, Chuttagunta, Guntur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Rc.No. A3/1236/2014 dt. 3.8.2015 of the 2"'^ respondent terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of verification report without conducting enquiry and Rc.No. A3/1236/201 dt.Nil .10.2015 confirming the 3.8.2015 orders and the judgement of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 698 of 2016 dt.9.10.2018 without verifying /adjudicating the correctness of the complaint in Cr.No. 71/2012 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative 14, 19, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and settled law of the Apex court and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to suspend Rc. No A3 1236 /2014 dt. 3.8.2015 issued by the 2^^ respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 expedite the final hearing of the above WP.No.447/2019 as early as possible in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. UGRANARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES II AND III The Court made the following order: APHC010010502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3527] TUESDAY.THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 447/2019 Between: 1.P D RANGANATH, AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION OFFICER GR.II K.MARKAPURAM (HA) KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. R/0 81-261/4, SRIRAMCHANDRANAGAR, DISTRICT. PIN 518002 KALLUR, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR. 2.THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KURNOOL 3.THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, A.P.,OID MIRCH YARD NALLAPADU ROAD, CHUTTAGUNTA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toprayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to pass orders particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Rc.No. A3/1236/2014 dt. 3.8.2015 of the 2nd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of verification report without conducting enquiry and Rc.No. A3/1236/201 dt.Ni1.10.2015 confirming the 3.8.2015 orders and the judgement of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 698 of 2016 dt.9.10.2018 without verifying /adjudicating the correctness of the complaintin 2 Cr.No. 71/2012 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative 14, 19, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and settled law of the Apex court and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all benefits and pass such other order or orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 be pleased to suspend Rc. No A3 1236 /2014 dt. 3.8.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to expedite the final hearing of the above WP.No.447/2019 as early as possible in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.J UGRANARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES III 2.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: (PerHon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant 1. Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing for the respondents. This Writ Petition was filed questioning the proceedings of the Respondent No.2 in Rc.No.A3/1236/2014, dated 03.08.2015, terminating the services of the petitioner on the basis of verification report, without conducting any enquiry, and the proceedings in Rc.No.A3/1236/2014, dated Nil.10.2015, confirming the proceedings dated 03.08.2015 as well as the judgment of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) in O.A.No.698 of 2016, dated 09.10.2018, without verifying or adjudicating the correctness of the complaint in Crime No.71 of 2012 and consequently sought direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all benefits. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition was filed assailing the common order in O.A.No.5702 of 2015 and O.A.No.698 of 2016 on the file of APAT at Hyderabad, dated 09.10.2018. He further submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Agricultural Extension Officer, Grade-ll and he was appointed to the said post on 30.01.2013. While so, he was asked to submit a Revised Attestation Form, wherein the column at 3. SI.No.11 reads as follows: “Have you ever been arrested by the police, convicted by a Court of law or detained under any state / central preventive detention laws for any offence? Whether such conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal or set aside by the Appellate Court if appealed against. (Note: If detained, convicted, debarred etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be r, 4 communicated immediately to the concerned Department or the authority to whom the Attestation Form has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information). If the answer is 'Yes', the full particulars of the conviction, sentences and detention should be given. ” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filled the Revised Attestation Form, dated 26.03.2013 by keeping in the column at SI.No.11. Though a criminal case vide Crime No.71 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was pending at that time,he did not show the said particulars as it had not attained finality. However, ultimately it was ended in acquittal vide C.C.No.328 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Dhone, dated 02.09.2015. He categorically refers to the para-17 of the judgment of the Criminal Court in C.C.No.328 of 2012 and submits that P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution. Specifically, the wife of the petitioner, who was the complainant, stated that at the instance of elders she foisted this case. Ultimately, the trial Court as stated supra found A1 and A2 therein not guilty for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and as such they were acquitted. Since the petitioner/AI was acquitted in that case, the benefit of acquittal should be extended to the petitioner, though he did not fill up the column at SI.No.11 of the Revised Attestation Form, dated 26.03.2013. 5. The Respondent authorities concerned, without taking into consideration of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, they issued the termination order without conducting any enquiry and without giving any 5 reasonable opportunity to substantiate the case of the petitioner. Specifically, the termination order vide Respondent No.2 herein passed Roc.No.A3/1236/2014, dated 03.08.2015. Subsequently, after acquittal of the petitioner and another accused from the criminal case, he made another representation to the authorities concerned. But, the same was not considered and again it was rejected vide proceedings dated 21.10.2015. But, in either of these two rejection orders. Respondent No.2 specifically did not take into consideration the acquittal of the petitioner. For the purpose of the case, the learned counsel refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union oflndia\ wherein it reads as under; "(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. (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. (3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. (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 late comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted- (a) In a case trivial nature in which conviction had been recorded, such shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in as ^ 2016 (8) see 471 6 question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of factor false information by condoning the lapse, (b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial In nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee, (c) 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. (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. (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. (7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by Itself will assume significance and 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 (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. (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 submitting false information in verification form. (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. I an 7 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. (11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressioveri or suggestionfalsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him." The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically draws the attention 6. with respect to the conclusions at point No.4 sub clauses (a) and (c) of the Avtar Singh case (1 supra) and submits that the case of the petitioner shall be treated as trivial in nature having no nexus to his employment. The respondent authorities ought to have considered it as a trivial in nature and ignored the non filling up of the information at SI.No.11 of the Revised Attestation Form by keeping (-) mark by the petitioner. Except that there is no other illegality or irregularity committed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent department has no other reason for terminating the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the decision of the 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others^ at para 34, which reads as follows; “34. 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 ^ (2024) 5 see 264 8 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. ” 8. Relying upon the above observation, the learned counsel submits that the circumstances led to the termination of the petitioner, shall not be deemed fatal for the petitioner and it should not be treated as a disqualification with respect to non discloser of any necessary information in the column at SI.No.11 of the above said Attestation Form, dated 26.03.2013. He also refers to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in a case between Sri. Sandip Garai vs. State of M/est Bengal & Others^, specifically para 14 observed as under; 14. The philosophy behind penology has undoubtedly, undergone a sea change through the centuries. Initially, the philosophy of penology was one of retribution and finally, in the present world, it is well settled that the ends and the scope of a penalty is not only punitive, corrective and preventive, but also regenerative, in the sense that It has also the goal of reforming the offender, rehabilitating him and making him again a good citizen. There has been an increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as an useful and self-reliant member of the society without subjecting him to the deleterious effects of long pending litigation. Thus, the competent executive functionary ought to have considered the petitioner's claim towards appointment subject to the pending criminal proceeding upon taking note of the nature of the offence, character of the offender, circumstances intervening m ^ 2016 see Online eal 4469 9 between the pendency of the case, previous conduct of the offender and his conduct during the course of trial. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing for the respondents submits that it is a case of suppression of fact, when the petitioner was asked to fill up the Revised Attestation Form, he ought to have mentioned about the date of arrest in Since he left the column blank, the respondent authorities are entitled to withhold his candidature, even after selection. Consequently as it was brought to their attention in the subsequent enquiry, the impugned termination order was passed. 9. Crime No.71 of 2012. The learned counsel also refers to para 69 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in a case between Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India & Others'* and further submits that the suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. 10. In reply to the said submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the facts and circumstance of the case, there is no bearing on the petitioner’s character conduct and antecedents merely because he left the column blank 11. ^ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798 10 at SI.No.11of the Revised Attestation Form dated, 26.03.2013. As already I stated above, it should be treated as trivial in nature. Instead of the termination by the Respondent No.2, the petitioner should have been reinstated into service by setting aside the termination orders. 12. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon rival submissions made and in the light of the above said decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on its own merits, without reference to the orders passed by the erstwhile APAT, which are assailed in this writ petition. For the said purpose, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation seeking reinstatement into service by enclosing ail the necessary documents and information within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of such representation along with necessary enclosures, the Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter. 13. The Respondent No.2 shall carefully examine the facts and circumstances of the case by taking into consideration the judgments of the Flon’ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. Further, the Respondent No.2 shall exercise the fair discretion. This order is passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case alone. 11 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as 14. to costs. , shall stand As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any closed. Sd/- N. NAGAWIMA ASSISTANT REGISTI^AR //true copy// SECTION OFFICER To, , The principal Secretary Agriculture Depanment, State of Andhra secretariat, Ve,agapudi,Antaravati, Guntur D,stnct. Kurnool. Pradesh 2. The Joint Director of Agriculture Director of Agriculture, A.P., Old Mirch Yard, Nallapadu road 3. The Chuttagunta, Guntur District. Sri J.Ugranarasimha, Advocate lOPUCl GP for services II, High Court of Andhra GP for services ill. High Courf of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. OneCCto 5. Two CCS to 6. Two CCS to 7. Two CD Copies Cnr m- 'H •< HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 447 OF 2019 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS