Katuru Ramu Vs The Union of India

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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus, declaring

¶17

2

¶18

the action of 3rd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings ref Mktg./Dos dated 16-8-2023 disqualifying the petitioner for the selection process for recruitment of ADO, 2022-2023 and also the issuance of show- cause notice dated 14-12-2023, calling for explanation for cancelling agency and the post of ADO, which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the proceedings of the third respondent dated 16-8-2023 by directing the third respondent to continue the petitioner in the post of ADO and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 suspend the impugned proceedings of the third respondent 16-8-2023 2023 by directing the third respondent to continue the petitioner in the post of ADO and pass

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶22

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 by condoning the delay in filing of the counter affidavit and allow the Counter Affidavit to be placed on record in the interest of justice and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.N RAVI PRASAD

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶27

2.J U M V PRASAD (S C for LIC)

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶31

W.P.No.9650 of 2024

¶32

O R DE R:

¶33

The present writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 16.08.2023 disqualifying the Petitioner for the selection to the post of ADO as illegal and arbitrary.

¶34

The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under:

¶35

On 21.01.2023, a notification was issued by Respondent No.2 inviting online applications from eligible candidates for selection and appointment as Apprentice Development Officers (ADO) in various Divisional Offices. About 112 posts were notified in Machilipatnam Division. The Petitioner by the date of notification was working as LIC agent and had made application on 30.01.2023 as per the prescribed format.

¶36

Consequent thereto, a letter was issued to the Petitioner to appear on line main examination to be conducted on 23.04.2023. The Petitioner appeared in the said examination and after qualifying in the same, was called for interview on 21.06.2023. After taking note of the performance of the Petitioner in the

¶37

4

¶38

written examination and interview, the Petitioner was provisionally selected as ADO vide letter dated 29.06.2023 and sent for training after medical examination. While the Petitioner was discharging his duties as ADO, Machilipatnam, Respondent No.3 issued impugned proceedings on 16.08.2023 disqualifying the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner was involved in a criminal case which was numbered as S.C.No.89 of 2016 which registered for the offences under Sections 376(2) (f)(n), 420, 413, 498(a) of IPC and also on the ground that the Petitioner had not given correct information as per the notification. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶39

Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Smt. M.Uma Devi, Central Government counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned standing counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶40

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the application enclosed along with the notification does not provide for any column, where the Petitioner was supposed to disclose any criminal case details. In the absence of any requirement in

¶41

5

¶42

the notification, the Petitioner cannot be said to have suppressed any fact.

¶43

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the criminal case against the Petitioner was at the instance of one Chilaka Lakshmi Prasanna, who is an LIC agent and she had lodged a complaint against the brother of the Petitioner Sri K.V.Nageswara Rao, his mother Sithamma and Petitioner alleging that his brother exploited her promising to marry. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has nothing to do and unfortunately, he was shown as one of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that the criminal case was acquitted vide judgment dated 26.02.2024 passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

¶44

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the affidavit that is said to have been given by the Petitioner should be considered as an anxious statement of the Petitioner and the Petitioner should not be castigated of his life on account of mere involvement in a criminal case as a co-accused.

¶45

6

¶46

In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is stated that the Petitioner was not discharging duties as ADO, Machilipatnam as on the date of passing of the impugned order. It is further stated that appointment letter was issued on 14.07.2023 on submission of indemnity bond and surety and the Petitioner was thereafter asked to attend training commenced on 17.07.2023 for a period of one month.

¶47

It is further stated that Divisional Office of the Respondents had received Whistle Blower Complaint (PIDPI Resolution) from CVC just before issuing the ADO appointment letter to the Petitioner stating that a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner and this fact was not disclosed in the selection process. It is further stated that an Enquiry Officer was appointed and on the basis of the enquiry report on 03.08.2023, it was disclosed that the Petitioner was Accused No.3 in the criminal case S.C.No.89 of 2016 on the file of IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam and suppressing this fact, the Petitioner had submitted an affidavit on 14.07.2023 on Rs.10/- stamp paper stating that no criminal cases are filed against him and he has no criminal record and as the affidavit given by the Petitioner being

¶48

7

¶49

clear suppression of fact, the impugned order was sought to be sustained.

¶50

Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned standing counsel submits that the affidavit of the Petitioner dated 14.07.2023 indicates that the Petitioner is willing to suppress material fact and such an individual is not worthy enough to be appointed in the post of ADO in the Respondent-Corporation.

¶51

Having heard the respective counsel, the notification for recruitment to the post of ADO and the application does not mention any disclosure of any criminal case of the applicants. Secondly, the criminal case that was registered against the Petitioner was primarily against the brother of the Petitioner i.e. K.V.Nageswara Rao, and the charge against the brother of the Petitioner are under Sections 376(2) (f)(n), 420, 413, 498(a) of IPC., whereas the charges against the Petitioner and others i.e. Accused Nos.2 to 4 in the criminal case are under Section 498-A IPC only.

¶52

The trial Court after taking note of the submissions made, dismissed the criminal case against the Petitioner and accused No.1-the brother of the Petitioner was found guilty of the offence

¶53

8

¶54

under Section 498-A IPC alone. The Petitioner and his mother were not found guilty of the offences alleged.

¶55

Considering the acquittal in the criminal case, the question that falls for consideration is, whether the Petitioner should be denied employment only on the ground that he had given an affidavit after provisional selection as ADO.

¶56

Firstly, it would be appropriate to examine the nature of acquittal of the Petitioner in a criminal case. In the well-reasoned judgment of the criminal Court, the only reference regarding this Petitioner and his mother is at paragraph 35 and it was held that there was no evidence to establish the case against the Petitioner and his mother i.e., Accused Nos.2 and 3 in the criminal case. The paragraphs 35 and 36 are extracted below.

¶57

„35, However, though it is alleged that PW-1 conceived pregnancy and the same is terminated against her will by accused No.1 to 4, the same could not be able to established with cogent evidence. Though, the evidence of PW-12 put forth it also goes to show that, there is no such evidence in her deposition to speak that, the pregnancy of PW-1 is terminated by accused No.1 to 4 against her will. On the other, evidence of PW-12 would goes to show that, it is PW-1 who informed her that unable to bear the stomach ache, she consumed tablets. Except that, the termination of

¶58

9

¶59

pregnancy of PW-1 by the accused No.1 to 4 against her will is not coming forth in the evidence of PW-12. Further there is no evidence to establish that accused No.2 and accused No.3 harassed PW-1 and subjected her to cruelty to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC . Even accused No. 2 and 3 are mother and brother of accused No.1. Hence, their approaching PW-1 and harassing her as alleged by the prosecution is not probable and cannot be believed. Hence, offence under section 498-A of IPC against accused No.2 and accused No. and section 313 r/w 34 of 1PC against A1 to A4 is not able to be established by the prosecution. Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 4 convicted under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. The Accused need to be questioned on the quantum of sentence.

¶60

36. In the result, accused No.1 found guilt for the offences punishable under section 376 (2) (f) (n), section 417 of IPC and accused No.4 und guilt for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC, accordingly, they convicted under section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., However, accused No.2 and 3 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and accused No.1 to 4 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 313 r/w 34 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences.‟

¶61

It is no doubt true that the nature of the criminal case is grave in nature, but it was primarily against Accused Nos.1 and 4 and not against Accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Petitioner and his

¶62

10

¶63

mother. It appears that the Petitioner and his mother are accused more on account of the fact that they are closely related to Accused Nos.1 and 4. It is an acknowledged fact that in cases under Section 498-A IPC., the family members are tagged along as co-accused mechanically. Be that as it may, as the acquittal of the Petitioner was on merits and an “Honorable” one, the said aspect warrants reconsideration of the impugned order.

¶64

Secondly, the Petitioner was working as LIC agent prior to the appointment as ADO. It would be odd to say that a person good enough to be continued as LIC agent and generate business to the Respondent-Corporation is not good enough to be appointed as an Officer.

¶65

Thirdly, the notification for recruitment does not strictly mention about the requirement of disclosure of pendency of criminal case. The Clause (XXIII) of the notification reads and under:

¶66

(xxiii) The candidate should not conceal or suppress any material fact regarding his/her arrest for any reasons or conviction or commitment to prison or having been subjected to preventive detention or to any penalties by any previous employer or having been adjudicated insolvent. In

¶67

11

¶68

such instances the candidate shall be liable for disqualification from the selection process as stated above in point (xxxii)

¶69

A reading of the above clause shows the information regarding arrest/ conviction/commitment to prison/preventive detention or adjudicated insolvent only was sought. No information regarding the pendency of involvement in the criminal case was sought. In the absence of any requirement of providing information of such, the disqualification of Petitioner is not within the parameters of recruitment notification. It is to be noted that the above Clause (XXIII) was not a mere aberration on a typographical error, since the application form does not provide any column requiring the Petitioner to disclose information of pendency of past criminal case.

¶70

In the absence of any information requirement in the recruitment notification as well as application form, the impugned order appears to be unsustainable. It is well known that the recruitment should be in terms of the notification and disqualification on the basis of an affidavit is beyond the notification.

¶71

12

¶72

Fourthly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that every suppression cannot be a ground to deny appointment. In the case of Pawan Kumar v. Union of India¹ , a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) while he was undergoing training was discharged from service on the ground that he did not disclose that an FIR under Sections 148,149,323,506 and 356 IPC was registered against him and he was prosecuted in the said case. It was found that there was suppression of information/false declaration in the verification form. The Criminal case ended in acquittal and in that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of discharge and directed reinstatement. The paragraphs 13, 17 and 19 are extracted below;

¶73

“13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and

¶74

1 2022 INSC 498

¶75

13

¶76

circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.”

¶77

“17. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, at the time of attestation form filled by the appellant, the criminal case was already registered against him but it may be noticed that at the very threshold, the complainant filed his affidavit that the complaint on 14 which FIR came to be registered was due to misunderstanding and he did not want to pursue his case any further, but still chargesheet came to be filed and on the first date of hearing, the alleged victim PW.1 did not support case of the prosecution and thus the order of clean acquittal came to be passed by the learned Judge of competent jurisdiction by judgment dated 12th August, 2011.”

¶78

“19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th November, 2015 and the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated 23rd December, 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the

¶79

14

¶80

period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs.”

¶81

21. In a similar fact scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh² cited the above referred case and ordered reinstatement. The paragraphs 34 and 35 are extracted below;

¶82

“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 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.

¶83

35.For the reasons set out hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench dated 29.10.2010 in

¶84

2 2024 INSC 131

¶85

15

¶86

Special Appeal No. 896/2005 are set aside. The order of 12.04.2005 of the third respondent, Commandant 27th Battalion, PAC, Sitapur 33 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant in service on the post of Constable for which he was selected, pursuant to his participation in reference to the Recruitment Notification dated 20.01.2004.”

¶87

In the light of the above, the impugned order is set-aside and the Writ Petition is allowed directing re-instatement of the Petitioner for the post he was selected, but without back wages. However, Petitioner will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits. No order as to costs.

¶88

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶89

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶90

Date: 23.09.2025 KLP

Katuru Ramu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katuru Ramu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rallapalli Vigneswarudu Vs the State of Ap

SKAIi Murthuja, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Maniyar Imran Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Eswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B S Narayana Vs the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Apsrtc

D Moulali Vs the State of Ap