IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVA WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 22 OF 2021 Between: Dodia Penchalaiah, S/o. Penchalaiah, aged bout 22 years, R/o. Kamakshi colony, Buchireddypalem, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Director General 6f Police, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad - 500001 2. The State Level Police Recruitment Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman - 500001 Po'^ce, SPSR Nellore District 524001 ''' Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500022 ^ Lakdikapool, Board, Andhra Pradesh at Nellore - ...Respondents Petition under Article 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 call for the records relating to and connected with the impugned Proceedings/Memorandum of the 2nd respondent passed in RC.No.114/RandT/Admn.2/2013, dated 22.12.2014 in rejecting the claim of applicant for sending him for training to the post Police constable and set aside the as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal passed in M.A.No.2235/2014 in O.A.No.1381/2013 dated 15.9.2014 and consequently direct the 2nd same respondent to reconsider for sending him for the case to Police constable of the applicant training/keeping in view the acquittal in CC.No.107/2010 with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 05.03.2025 vide lA No.2 of 2021 in W.P (A.T).No.22 of 2021.) lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 Direct the Respondents to send the applicant for training in view of his Selection in The Police Constable Recruitment 2008 Vide Regn.No.769355 Token NO. 12209 in view of closure of criminal cases^ against him lA NO: 3 OF 2021 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 restore the 0A.N0.1381 OF 2013 to its original file by setting aside the dismiss for default order dated 24-6-2016 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 4: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: Order APHC010214432021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the thirtieth day of April two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi W.P.tA.T.) No: 22 of 2021 (O.A No.1381 of 2018) Between: Dodia Penchalaiah ...Petitioner and The Director General of Police and others Counsel for the Petitioner: I.V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: 1.GP for Services I The Court made the following: ...Respondents ORDER: The writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.1381 of 2013. After transfer of the case to this Court, it was numbered as W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021. The petition is filed challenging the Proceedings/Memorandum of the 2"^^ respondent passed in R.C.No.114/R&T/Admn.2/2013, dated 22.12.2014 in rejecting the claim of petitioner for sending him for training to the post 2 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 of police Constable and set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the orders of the Administrative Tribunal passed in M.A.No.2235/2014 in O.A.No.1381/2013 dated 15.09.2014 and consequently direct the 2 respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for police Constable to send him for training, keeping in view the acquittal in CC.No.107/2010 with all consequential benefits. nd The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: 2. In the police The petitioner belongs to S.T. community. Constable recruitment-2008(2), on his application, he was issued an identity card vide Registration No. 769355 (token No. 12209). He was qualified for preliminary selection test (5 K.M. run) conducted in the month of March 2009; thereafter, in physical measurement test conducted on 16.07.2009; the written examination conducted on 13.09.2009. He also participated in P.E.T. performance (men) in various categorized tests and was qualified. In the village of the petitioner, there are political groups which are frequently making complaints against each other. The petitioner was informed, through his family members that on 03.01.2010 at about 15.00 hours, an altercation had taken place between the revenue officials. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No.4 of 2010 was registered. Except the petitioner, his friends who are agriculturists were implicated in the said crime. Again, on the same day, another crime i.e. Crime No.6 of 2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427 r/w 149 IPC against petitioner as accused No. 13. The de facto complainant in Crime No.6 of 2010 is inimical to the family members of the petitioner and knowing that the petitioner was selected in the P.E.T., implicated the petitioner in the second crime as an afterthought. A charge sheet 3 W.P.(AT).No.22of 2021 I was also filed in C.C.No.107 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, Nellore District, the respondent No.2 board informed that the petitioner would not be considered for training. Since pendency of a criminal case is not an impediment, this petition was filed seeking direction to the respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to undergo training, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship. y In view of the same, r The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit stating briefly as 3. follows: The assertions made by the petitioner are factually incorrect, legally unsustainable, and appear to have been fabricated for the purpose of the present case. During the process of verification of antecedents, it came to light that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered against him on 03.01.2010 in Cr. No.06 of 2010, under sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427 r/w 149 IPC at Buchireddypalem Police Station, and that the case was charge-sheeted on 16.02.2010, and subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the case of CC No.107 of 2010 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, on 19.03.2014 under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The notification issued by the S.L.P.R.B. clearly outlined the conditions for eligibility, particularly with respect to the verification of the character and antecedents of candidates. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the notification stated that the person shall satisfy the selection authority and the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service and that suppression of material facts or withholding any factual information either in the application or the attestation form will disqualify the candidate. Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, requires that a 4 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 V A candidate must satisfy the selection authority that his character and antecedents qualify him for the service. Additionally, Rule 3(F) of G.O.Ms.Mo.97 of Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 01-05-2006, reiterates this requirement. The criminal case against him was filed on 03.01.2010 and the charge-sheet was filed on 16.02.2010. Despite this, the petitioner deliberately failed to disclose his involvement in the criminal case in column No. 16 of the attestation form filed on 23.12.2010, suppressing material facts. The petitioner signed a declaration at the end of the attestation form, acknowledging that furnishing false information or suppressing material facts would result in disqualification and termination of employment. Hence, withholding the information about the criminal case constitutes violation of the rules. Consequently, the selection authority determined that the petitioner was not suitable for appointment due to concerns regarding his character and conduct and cancelled his provisional selection. An order was issued on 29.04.2011, stating that his appointment was revoked due to the issues related to his antecedents. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his selection, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1381 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (A.P.A.T.) seeking a direction to allow him to undergo training as he was acquitted. During the pendency of the O.A., the petitioner filed M.A. No. 2235 of 2014, seeking a direction to be sent for training due to the closure of the criminal case against him. The A.P.A.T., by its order dated 15.09.2014, directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s request for training, considering his acquittal. Upon receiving the said order, the petitioner’s case was reconsidered, but his request for training was rejected on 22.12.2014, due to his prior suppression of facts. The petitioner subsequently filed further petitions, including M.A.No.1675 of 2016 and W.P.No.21470 of 2019, to challenge the rejection of his request. The High Court, by its order dated 5 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 m 03.01.2020, restored O.A.No.1381 of 2013, subject to the petitioner paying costs. The Supreme Court, in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav ^, and A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu^, held that suppression of material information and making a false statement in the attestation form which is meant for verification of character and antecedent of the employee has a bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuation in service, irrespective of result in the criminal case. The same view was held previously by the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration and others Vs. Sushil Kumar ^, emphasizing that the character and antecedents of a candidate are crucial for determining their suitability for a post under the state in spite of passing the tests of physical fitness etc., notwithstanding relieving from criminal charge. The Supreme Court reiterated the same view in Devender Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal"*, and Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and Ors.^ In Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another Vs. Anil Kanwariya®, the Supreme Court observed that the question is not just about allegation, but credibility of an employee who at the initial stage itself made a false statement by suppressing material facts. The suppression of material facts by the petitioner at the time of application, regardless of the nature or outcome of the criminal case, not only undermines the integrity of the recruitment process, but also has significant implications on his character and trustworthines s. I'- ' (2003) 3 see 437 ^(2005) 7 see 177 ^(1996) 11 see 605 ".(2013) 9 see 363 ^(2023) 7 see 536 ®.(2021) 10 see 136 6 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 ■■i' particularly in the context of a disciplined force like the police. Consequently, the petition should be dismissed. In the light of the subsequent developments, the petitioner got permission to amend the relief noted in the preceding paragraph No.1, as per order dated 05.03.2025 in M.A.No.1674of 2016, renumbered as I.A.No.02of2016. 4. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner reiterating the facts mentioned above in the counter about the subsequent developments and further stating briefly as follows: 5. The respondent No.2 passed the order dated 22.12.2014, just stressing suppression on material facts, without objectively and reasonably considering the matter or antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner became a scapegoat in the village politics at the behest of the rival. The petitioner hails from a poor family. With his hard work, he was provisionally selected in the P.E.T. It is only due to fear of loss of job in the event of disclosing the case, it was not mentioned in the attestation form. Except this mistake, there is no other blame on the petitioner. Moreover, the case ended in acquittal. The petitioner waited for all these years for the job with a fond hope. 6. The respondent No.2 filed an additional counter affidavit reiterating the facts and circumstances of the case and Rule & G.O., etc., noted above and further submitted that basing on the interim orders in M.A. No.2235 of 2014 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the petitioner's case was once again re-examined. The respondent No.2 issued a speaking order to the petitioner vide Memo Rc. No.114/R&T/Admn.2/2013, dt.22.12.2014 in view of the judgment dated 01.12.2014 in S.L.P.No.36237 of 2012, wherein the Supreme Court 7 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 a . •J’ <!' issued clear directions that police force is a disciplined force and shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society and people repose great faith and confidence in it, and so, a candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. Later, the A.P.A.T., in its order dated 24.06.2016 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, dismissed theO.A. After lapse of three years, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21470 of 2019 in the High Court against the order of A.P.A.T., dated 24.06.2016, in O.A.No.1381 of 2013. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not, but the question is about the credibility and / or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment as held by the apex Court, in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited Vs. Anil Kanwariya and another (supra). Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that mere suppression of certain information of trivial nature does not disentitle the petitioner from being considered for appointment to the post of police constable and moreover as the case ended in acquittal, a lenient view shall be taken and he must be given appointment. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. MituI Kumar Jana^ and Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others®. He further referred to the decision of 7. \ \ 2023 INSC 754 : (2023)14 SCC 719 ®. 2024 INSC 131 : (2024) 5 SCC 264 8 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 Division Bench of this High Court in Government of A.P. and others Vs. Vadde Pavan Kumar®. 8. On the other hand, Sri Vuyyuru Ram Manohar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the truth and the authority has rightly declined the request basing on the observations of the Supreme Court referred in the order as the police force shall be regarded on a different plot-form and moreover in the present case, the acquittal is not an honorary acquittal after considering the whole evidence after trial holding him no such offence was committed or proved, but the acquittal is based on hostility of the prosecution witness He further submitted that the case against the petitioner and the counter case arise out of the same day as case and counter cases due to attack by one party against the other and therefore, mere acquittal based on hostile evidence cannot be recorded as a clean acquittal. He further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is not for a trivial offence like rising slogans etc., but it is a grave offence involving causing injuries with dangerous weapons punishable under Section 324 IPC etc., and therefore, it is not a case fit to appoint the petitioner as a police constable which job involves maintenance of law and order. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. and others Vs. Parvez Khan 10 in addition to the decisions referred in the counter, and submitted that facts and circumstances in each case shall be considered to examine whether there is suppression of material facts and whether the details of the case suppressed are trivial or grave and consequently an appropriate decision shall be taken either to appoint or ®. I.A.No.1 of 2023 in WP No.33306 of 2012 and batch, dated 09.05.2024 (2015) 2 see 591 \ 9 W.P.(AT),No.22of 2021 to dismiss / cancel the appointment. He further submitted that in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others^\ the three- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court sets out the conclusions on how to appreciate a matter relating to suppression of the information and the same is considered in several following judgments and the same guidelines hold good even as on today and that the same decision has been considered in the case cited by the petitioner’s counsel and based on the facts and circumstances in those cases, appropriate directions were given. Therefore, he submitted that in the present case which is different from the facts in the other cited cases does not require interference in the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. 9. Rule 12(1 )(a) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 states that; “(a) No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority, that (i) ... (ii) his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service:(iii) ... (iv)...” Rule 3(F) of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 issued in G.O.Ms.No.315, Home (Police-C) Department dated 13.10.1999, as amended G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 01.05.2006 states as: "3(F) Antecedents Verification: No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he 11 . (2016)8 see 471 I 10 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service.” L Rule 3(G)(i) of the same Rules, states as: “3(G) Disqualification for appointment: The candidates falling under the following categories shall be disqualified for appointment, under these rules. (i) Suppression of material facts (either in the application form or in the attestation form).” Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the notification stated as follows: “21: Antecedents verification: No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority and the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. 22: Suppression of material facts or withholding any factual information either in the application or the attestation form (Which would be supplied to the candidates who will be provisionally selected) will disqualify the candidate from being considered for appointment. In the event of any information being found false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected at any time even after appointment, he or she will be discharged from service forthwith by the appointing authority without giving any notice." 11 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 Avtar Singh (supra) at paragraphs 34, 35, 36 The decision in and 38 are most relevant as these observations have been consistently before the Supreme Court and particularly in followed in several cases the cases relied on by the counsel for the petitioner as well it that verification of character and “34. No doubt about 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, due consideration of act on The employer has to rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though who has suppressed the material information cannot a person claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a irght 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 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. on 12 WM W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 :aS*IS 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 appropriateto 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 13 W.P.<AT).No.22 of 2021 h . 1 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 ail 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 14 appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal were pending may not be proper. cases 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 suppression veri or suggestion falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” 11. In MituI Kumar Jana, (supra), he was declared fit in the tests conducted for the post of Constable in West Bengal police force, but as he failed to declare the fact of pendency of a criminal case against him 15 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 in the ‘Police Verification Roll’, and it was found the police verification report, order of appointment was not given to him. The Administrative Tribunal disposed off the petition holding that it is not a case of suppression of information by the petitioner, however observing that in case of his acquittal in the criminal case, his case may be considered by the government as per rules, since direction for appointment cannot be given without his acquittal. The High of W.B. concurred with the view of the Tribunal that there is no suppression of fact of the case since column No. 12 of the verification roll requires information of arrest, detention and conviction, but not pending criminal case; however allowed the writ petition directing the government to give him appointment subject to final outcome of the case due to presumption of innocence till guilt is proved as there was no conviction. Pending the case before the Supreme Court, he was acquitted in the case. In the light of these facts, the Supreme Court, having noted that the case does not involve moral turpitude and was relating to a dispute of egress and ingress to a passage and registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 447, 323 and 506 of I.P.C., confirmed the finding on the non-suppression of material fact and modified the order of the High Court directing the government to consider his case and issue order of appointment within the stipulated time. in Vadde Pavan Kumar, (supra), the Division Bench of this High Court, after referring to several decisions, dismissed the review petitions filed by the government against the orders in the writ petitions upholding the orders of the Administrative Tribunal setting aside the proceedings discharging the Reserve Sub-Inspectors (AR) for suppression of fact of their involvement in criminal cases in the attestation form. In those cases the criminal cases were held to be relating to trivial offences and 12. 16 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 r they were acquitted even prior to the notification for the recruitment. Moreover, in one of them, there was no suppression of the information. Following the dictum in the cases of appoint Avtar Singh, (supra) and Commissioner of Police and another Vs., Sundeep Kumar petitions were dismissed. 12 the writ 13. In the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra), several decisions of the Supreme Court, including, Avtar Singh (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), were referred and observed that even the broad principles set out in the said decisions 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. Particular reference was made to the decision in Avtar Singh (supra) with regard to the principle in paragraph No.38.4.3 that in case of suppression 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. Further, it is observed 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 and that each case will depend on the 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 and it can never be a one size fits of scenario. or .(2011) 4 see 644 17 W.P.<AT).No.22 of 2021 w ■ t'S 4 i‘ yi '•V Therefore, in each case, basing on the facts and circumstances, the decision impugned under the writ petition shall be examined. 14. 15. In the present case, in the notification itself at paragraphNo.21, it is specified that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. Paragraph No.22 of the notification clearly indicated that suppression of material facts or withholding any factual information either in the application or in the attestation form will disqualify the candidate from being considered for appointment and also that in the event of any information being found false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected at any time even after appointment, he / she shall be discharged from the service forthwith by the appointing authority without giving any notice. Therefore, the petitioner is very much aware of his application to disclose the relevant material. Further, Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Rules, 1996, specify that no person shall be eligible for appointmentto any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority, that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. That apart. Rule 3(F) of the A. P. Police (S.C.T.) Rules, 1999 obligates the person seeking appointment to service to satisfy the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. Rule 3(G)(i) thereof declares that suppression of material facts, either in the application form or in the attestation form, would disqualify the candidate for appointment. In column No. 16 of the attestation form, the following information was furnished by the petitioner. 18 W.P.(AT).No.22of 2021 16 Whether you were involved in any criminal case? Yes No If yes, indicate a) Crime No. b) Year c) Name of the Police Station d) Name of the district e) Whether you were ever arrested by the police? Yes No (even in a petty case or under preventive sections) f) Whether you were prosecuted by the police in a court of law? If so, indicate the present stage of this case: 1)under trail 2)convicted 3)compounded 4)acquitted Note; 1) If convicted whether such conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal or set aside by the appellate Court if appealed against: 2) If involved in a criminal case subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be informed immediately to the authority to whom the attestation form has been submitted earlier failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information. 3) If you were involved in more than one criminal case? Yes No If yes, give details in separate paper in the above proforma. Inspite of such clear legal obligation, in column No.16 of the attestation form submitted on 23.12.2010, the petitioner stated “No” at every place, knowing pretty well that a case was registered against him on 19 '/ . W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 ’ '4r im f-': 11 ■4 03.01.2010 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427 r/w 149 IPC vide Crime No.6 of 2010 of Buchireddypalem P.S. and a charge sheet was also filed against the accused in February, 2010 itself and a C.C.No.107 of 2010 was also registered well before he submitted his attestation form. The petitioner did not deny the suppression of the information, but vainly tried to justify the stating that he feared to disclose to avoid loss of job. The petitioner was accused No. 13 and the allegation against all the accused is common that they made a vain attempt to open the doors and damaged the domes of two show lights, window glasses of the house of the de facto complainant on 03.01.2010 at about 21.30 hrs when the de facto complainant and his family members had gone inside their house due to fear and locked the doors from inside to themselves from the accused and further that the accused also had beaten three more prosecution witness with sticks and caused injuries. Of course, there is a counter case lodged against the de facto complainant and others for the similar offence. Thus, they are case and counter case. The result in the counter case is not known. The case against the petitioner and others ended in acquittal on 19.03.2014 solely as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. same 16. rescue 1" I: \ \ 17. In the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Mehar Singh referred to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in R.B.I. Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal expressions of “honourable acquittal 13 14 wherein it was observed that the acquitted of blame” and “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code and that they are coined by judicial pronouncements and it is 13.(2013) 7 see 685 .(1994) 1 see 541 14 20 W.P.(AT).No.22 of 2021 difficult to define what is meant by the expression “honourably acquitted” and the Supreme Court further observed that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. Keeping in view the guidelines indicated in the Avtar Singh case (supra) and the fact that the acquittal of the petitioner is only due to hostility of the prosecution witnesses and further considering the fact that the job of a police constable involves law and order, whereas the petitioner is accused of offences noted above and further considering the decision of the Supreme Court relied by the authority passing impugned order in State of M.P. and others Vs (Supra), this is not a case fit to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Parvez Khan 18. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC"fi&OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] T^^CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Three CD Copies 2. 3. gsg \ HIGH COURT DATED: 30/04/2025 ORDER WP (AT).No.22 of 2021 ) 8 JDL 2025 c9V itftnt DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS