APHC010438312013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21273/2013 Between: 1. J.KIRAN VIJAY KUMAR,, S/O. J.JAYARAJ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, JUNIOR LINEMAN, 0/O. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUTHUR (RURAL), CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PUTHUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned Memo.No. DE/O/PTR/JAO/AdM/S1/CON/D.No. 68/12, dated 18-9-2012 issued by the 1st respondent and the rejection orders passed in appeal by the 2nd respondent in Memo.No. SE/0/TPT/PO/JAO.II/ADM/D.No. 19/13, dated 8-1-2013 and the rejection orders passed by the 3rd respondent in mercy petition vide Memo.No. 2 CGM/HRD/JS/DGM.IV/PO (DC)/F.249-TPT-O&M/D.No. 587/13, dated 13-3- 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement to duty as Junior Lineman with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances etc., IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 26054 OF 2013 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 direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to reinstate him to duty as Junior Lineman by suspending the operation of the impugned Memo.No. DE/O/PTR/JAO/AdM/S1/CON/D.No. 68/12, dated 18-9-2012 issued by the respondent and the rejection orders passed in appeal by the 2nd respondent in Memo.No. SE/0/TPT/PO/JAO.II/ADM/D.No. 19/13, dated 8- 1-2013 and the rejection orders passed by the 3rd respondent in mercy petition vide Memo.No. CGM/HRD/JS/DGM.IV/PO (DC)/F.249-TPT- O&M/D.No. 587/13, dated 13-3-2013 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURYA TEJA ANUMOLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 2. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2012 issued by the 1st respondent and the appellate orders, rejecting the case of the petitioner passed by the 2nd respondent on 08.01.2013. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Lineman in pursuance of the notification dated 16.07.2007. The services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 03.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a charge memo dated 16.09.2011 was issued alleging that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of involvement in a criminal case at the time of entering into the department by not mentioning the same in Column No.12 of the attestation form submitted by him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application form does not mandate the applicants to disclose any pendency of a criminal case and that the Column No.12 would only mandate the applicant to disclose if at all the applicant is convicted by a Court of law or detained under any state/central, preventive, detention laws for any offence and that whether such conviction sustained in the Court of appeal or set aside by the appellate Court, if appeal preferred. The note further clarifies that the applicant should also disclose if detained, convicted subsequently to the completion and submission of this form. The details should be communicated immediately to APSPDCL 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 or factual information. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was involved in a crime. However, the same was not mandatory for the petitioner to disclose at the time of submission of the form as the clause mandates disclosure of any conviction or detention under preventive laws. It is submitted that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.136 of 2007 and the petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur. It is also submitted that the punishment of simple imprisonment for 03 months and fine of Rs.5,000/- was modified by the appellate Court and the petitioner was directed to pay the fine and that the appeal was allowed in part by setting aside the conviction of 03 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was issued the charge sheet by categorically stating that the petitioner had suppressed the involvement in a criminal case. It is submitted that when the application form itself does not mandate disclosure of involvement in any crime before conviction, no such occasion could have arisen for the petitioner to mention about his involvement in the said pending case. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to disclose the involvement in the case, even before the Enquiry Officer. It is further submitted that the petitioner was convicted 03 days after submission of the said form and that he was under obligation to inform his immediate superiors with regard to the conviction. It is also submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was also not allowed, except for setting aside the imprisonment part, the petitioner was imposed a fine of 5 Rs.5,000/- was upheld by the Appellate Court. It is submitted that the abstract of the respondent dated 22.05.2002 would entitle the respondent to dismiss the accused officers from service immediately after conviction, even if the appeal filed by the said officer is pending before the appellate Court. 6. The application which was submitted by the petitioner in 2011 is filed as an annexure to the writ petition. The Column No.12 does not mandate the petitioner to revealing involvement in a criminal case. However, note to Column No.12 makes it amply clear that the petitioner is under obligation to submit the details of the conviction immediately to APSPDCL or the authority to whom the attestation form has been sent a bill. Failure on the part of the applicant could be deemed as suppression of the factual information. The petitioner ought to have brought to the notice of the respondents soon after he was convicted in the criminal case. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not furnish the details of the conviction and the details of the appellate Court order. The abstract dated 22.05.2002 would entitle the respondents to take appropriate action on the erring employees. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.30.03.2026 SR