APHC010946342017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3562] THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 42378/2017 Between: 1. THE STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD,, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, AT HYDERABAD 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,, MACHILIPATNAM, AT KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. RATNA SAGAR BANDI, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 27 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o.Door No.39-12-1, Labbipet, T.V.R. Street, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of “WRIT OF CERTIORARI" call for records relating to and connected with the orders of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 27-09-2016 in O.A.No.3773 of 2014 (O.A.No.3770 of 2014 & Batch) and to quash or set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 52538 OF 2017 -2- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 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 suspend the operation of the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 27-09-2016 in O.A.No.3773 of 2014 (O.A.No.3770/14 & Batch) pending disposal of the W.P. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave for filing the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent in W.P.No.42378 of 2017 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KARTHIKSIDDARTHA SALADI The Court made the following: -3- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 Date of reserved for orders : 24.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2026 Date of uploading : 17.07.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta) 1. Instant writ petition is preferred against order, dated 27.09.2016, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, „tribunal‟), Hyderabad, in O.A.No.3773 of 2014. The prayer in the writ petition reads as follows: “… to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of “WRIT OF CERTIORARI” call for records relating to and connected with the orders of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 27.09.2016 in O.A. No.3773 of 2014 (O.A. No.3770 of 2014 & Batch) and to quash or set aside the same and pass such other order….” 2. The factual matrix of the case: a. Respondent and the other applicants, were provisionally selected to the posts of SCTPC (Civil) (Men), SCTPC (AR) (Men) and Firemen pursuant to Notification No.927/R&T/Rect.2/2011 dated 31.10.2011 issued by the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Subsequently, their provisional selections were cancelled on the ground that they had suppressed their involvement in criminal cases while filling up the attestation forms. Challenging the same, respondent and the other applicants approached the tribunal. -4- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 b. Learned tribunal heard the applicants and passed a common judgment by issuing specific direction in paragraph 14, which reads as follows: “14. For the reasons stated under Point No.(i) O.A. No.3770/2014, O.A. No.3772/2014, O.A. No.3773/2014, O.A. No.3774/2014, O.A. No.3775/2014, O.A. No.3776/2014, O.A. No.3778/2014, O.A. No.3786/2014 and O.A. No.10650/2012 are allowed. The impugned proceedings in Rc.No.521/R & T/Genl.2/2012, dt.24.05.2013, Rc.No.522/R & T/Genl.2/2012, dt.20.08.2013, Rc.No.522/R & T/Genl.2/2012, dt.20.08.2013, Rc.No.522/R & T/Genl.2/2012, dt.20.08.2013, Rc.No.522/R & T/Genl.2/2012, dt.20.08.2013, Rc.No.674/R & T/Genl.2/2013, dt.21.04.2014, Show Cause Notice Rc.No.523/R & T/Genl.2/ 2012, dt.04.01.2013, Rc. No.523/R & T/ Genl.2/2012, dt.13.12.2013 and C.No.A12/8872/Rect.2011/2012-13, dt.20.08.2013 are set aside, with a direction to the respondents to send the applicants for training and appoint them to the post to which they were selected on completion of the training, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” c. Challenging the said direction, instant writ petition has been preferred by the State. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER/ STATE: a. Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, submitted that respondent participated in the recruitment process in pursuance of Notification No.927/R&T/ Rect.2/2011 dated 31.10.2011 with Registration No.179879 and was provisionally selected to the post of SCTPC (Civil) (Men) to Vijayawada City. Thereafter, antecedent verification of provisionally selected candidates including respondent was done as per rules. During antecedent verification, it came to light that respondent was involved in Crime No.448 of 2012 registered by Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada City, for an -5- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 offence under Section 337 of I.P.C., wherein he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- by judgment dated 17.09.2012 for offence of rash and negligent driving. b. It is further argued that respondent has applied and participated in the selection process by suppressing the above criminal antecedent and while submitting the attestation form he has written “No” against the relevant column seeking such information. It is further argued that at the end of the attestation form it has been verified by respondent that all statements made in the application are true, complete and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. The attestation form specifically stipulated that in the event of furnishing false information or suppression of any factual information would render a candidate disqualified for employment under Government. It has also enumerated therein, if it comes to notice at any point of time during his service that false information had been furnished or material facts suppressed, the service of the candidate would be liable to be terminated solely on that ground. It is further argued that respondent has willfully suppressed about his involvement in criminal case in the attestation form, hence provisional selection was justifiably cancelled. c. It is further argued that learned tribunal has not properly gone through the relevant rules, particularly rule 3(g)(1) of the Andhra -6- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 and passed an erroneous order. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 3. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: a. Sri Karthik Siddartha Saladi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that impugned order passed by learned tribunal suffers no illegality. The issue has been time and again dealt with by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well as Division Benches of this Court. In several decisions, it has been unequivocally directed that appointment of candidates for non- disclosure of criminal antecedents cannot be taken into consideration if it is not involved any offence involvement of moral turpitude or of offence of trivial nature. b. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar1; (ii) Avtar Singh v. Union of India2; and (iii) Common judgment of this Court in W.P. Nos.33306 of 2012, 17758 of 2013, 24990 of 2013 and 29006 of 2018. 4. OBSERVATION OF THIS COURT: a. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 1 (2011)4 SCC 644 2 (2016) 8 SCC 471 -7- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 Perused the material available on record, including the order passed by learned Tribunal. b. The sole issue falls for consideration before this Court is that, whether non-disclosure of criminal antecedents of a candidate at the time of filing of attestation form can itself disqualify him for selection. c. Admittedly, this issue was time and again considered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well as by Division Benches of this Court in several occasions. In Avtar Singh’s case (supra1), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court laid down specific guidelines in paragraphs 38.4 to 38.11. The guidelines are depicted as follows: 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 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. -8- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 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 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 8uggestion8 veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him. c. In the said judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has also dealt with the law laid down in Sandeep Kumar‟s case (supra1) and has observed, at paragraph 24 : -9- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 “24. In Commr. Of Police v. Sandeep Kumar this Court considered a case where Sandeep Kumar‟s candidature for the post of Constable was cancelled on the ground that he had concealed his involvement in the criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC when he was about 20 years. In para 9, this Court took note of the character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo‟s novel Les Miserables in which for committing a minor offence of stealing of loaf of bread for his hungry family, Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for whole life. This Court also referred to the decision in Morris v. Crown Office 3 Relevant portion is extracted hereunder: (Sandeep Kumar case, SCC pp.645-47 paras 8-12). “8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court 4 that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened, the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.” d. Similar issue has arisen before a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1364 of 2025, wherein this Court held at paragraphs 8 and 9: “8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and upon careful examination of the material available on record, the following admitted facts are emerged for consideration: (a) The petitioner submitted application for the post of Police Constable pursuant to the notification, dated 13.12.2008. 3 (1970) 2 QB 114:(`970) 2 WLR 792 (CA) 4 Sandeep Kumar v. Commr. Of Police, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 836: (2006) 90 DRJ 707 -10- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 (b) The petitioner participated in the selection process and provisionally selected to the post of Police Constable in Nellore District. (c) A case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2010, dated 03.10.2010 of Butchireddypalem Police Station and the petitioner was implicated as Accused No.13 and the said case was charge sheeted on 16.02.2010. (d) The petitioner has submitted the attestation form on 23.12.2010. (e) The petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment, dated 13.03.2014 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur. (f) The provisional selection of the petitioner as Police Constable was cancelled by order, dated 29.04.2011. (g) The petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1381 of 2013. (h) On 15.09.2014 in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to consider the request of the petitioner for sending for training in view of his acquittal in criminal case. Pursuant to the said order, the request of the petitioner has been considered and it was rejected vide Memo, dated 22.12.2014. (i) Thereafter, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was dismissed for default by order, dated 24.06.2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and it was restored to its file pursuant to the order, dated 03.10.2020 in W.P.No.21470 of 2019 of a Division Bench by this Court. Subsequently, due to abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the said O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was transferred to this High Court and it was renumbered as W.P.(AT) No.22 of 2021. (j) The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said W.P. (AT) No.22 of 2021 by order, dated 13.04.2025. 9. In this factual position, the issues that arise for consideration before this Court are: (1) Whether the State was justified in cancelling the provisional selection of the appellant/petitioner as Police Constable vide order, dated 29.04.2011 and the Memo No.114/R&T/Admn.2/2013, dated 22.12.2014? -11- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 (2) To what relief, is the appellant/petitioner entitled to? e. In the present case, it appears that after the applicant was provisionally selected, during verification, it revealed that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 337 of IPC, in which he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. f. Obviously, the offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. is trivial in nature in which conviction has been recorded. The guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh‟s case has clearly imposed a duty upon the employer to make necessary enquiry and find as to whether the candidate who has submitted application form suppressing his criminal antecedent was actually in a case trivial in nature or it is a case involved in moral turpitude or offence of heinous and serious in nature. Mere registration of a criminal case against any person does not automatically stigmatize a candidate or disentitle him to employment under government. g. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh‟s case has made specific guidelines and directives upon the employer to conduct an administrative enquiry as to ascertain nature and antecedent of the candidate prior to cancellation of his candidature. More so, in paragraph 38.10 of Avtar Singh‟s case (supra1) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has also put a duty upon the employer to enquire regarding the suppression or submission of false information in -12- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 the attestation form. In that score, the enquiry so held by the employer should not vitiate the principles of natural justice. h. In this particular case, petitioners have not conducted any enquiry as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Avthar Singh‟s case before cancelling the candidature, which is not justified. i. Moreover, being a welfare state, petitioners cannot deny employment opportunity of applicant, who might have involved in a petty case of rash driving for which he has been punished. j. Unemployment of this country has reached to its vulnerable state, at this time denying employment to youth shall lead him to adopt unfair or antisocial mode of earnings. Penal jurisdiction in India for awarding sentence to accused is a corrective measure rather than punitive. Thus, after serving a sentence a convict is allowed to enter into society scot free, he must not have compelled to carry stigma of convict for his entire life. k. On that score, even if present applicant may be convicted then also as nature of conviction in offence of trivial nature, he cannot be denied his employment. l. Learned tribunal has correctly gone through the issues pointed out before it and has categorically decided the issues by assigning the reasons thereof. -13- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 m. On a thorough observation of the impugned judgment passed by the learned tribunal, we find no reason to interfere. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and hence, the writ petition being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. No order as to costs. n. The applicant/ respondent was provisionally selected pursuant to the recruitment notification issued in the year 2011; nearly 15 years have elapsed since then. Hence, the petitioners/ State is directed to carry out the direction of learned tribunal in its true letter and spirit as early as possible, more preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 5. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J BV -14- W.P. No.42378 of 2017 Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No