Dismissed

The Government of a.P., v. Ammula Raj Kumar

Telangana HC9 Jun 2014WP/15586/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was dismissed against the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order approving a police constable's selection despite his prior conviction involving a fine, ruling that such a fine does not constitute disqualifying conviction or moral turpitude. The court relied on Sandeep Kumar.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

The Government of a.P., Vs Ammula Raj Kumar — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.15586 of 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28-112013 in O.A.No.6199 of 2011 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶6

2. The respondent herein is the applicant, and the petitioners herein are the respondents, in O.A.No.6199 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶7

3. The applicant filed aforesaid O.A. praying the Tribunal to declare the action of the respondents in not sending him for training for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) (for short, “SCT PC (Civil)”) along with other selected candidates though he was declared selected, by referring to his earlier involvement in the petty case, as illegal. The said O.A. was disposed of directing the respondents to approve the selection of the applicant and depute him for training to the post of SCT PC (Civil) by following the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.1430 of 2007 in the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar.

¶8

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal-II), dated 1-05-2006 on two

¶9

grounds the applicant was disqualified for appointment namely:

¶10

1. A person who has been convicted for any offence in any court of law, and

¶11

2. A person who is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude.

¶12

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the un-official respondent herein/applicant contended that the applicant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 290 and 323 IPC in S.T.C.No.135 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Metpalli and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- vide judgment dated 24-09-2010 and it does not amount to a conviction. He also contended that in view of Sandeep Kumar’s decision (1 supra), the offences under Sections 290 and 323 IPC causing nuisance in the public street or locality and causing simple injury, do not come within the purview of disqualification involving in moral turpitude. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶13

6. In pursuance of the notification issued for the post of SCT PC (Civil), the applicant applied for the same and was selected in the year 2008. The selections were finalized in the year 2010. Despite his selection, he was not given appointment letter. He came to know that it was not given on the ground of his involvement in S.T.C.No.135 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 290 and 323 IPC and as he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the said offences.

¶14

7. The A.P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘the Rules’) issued in G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal-II) dated 01-05-2006 provides various special categories and eligibility criteria. Rule 3 (G) of the Rules provides for disqualification, which

¶15

reads as follows:

¶16

“(G) Disqualification for appointment: The candidates falling under the following categories shall be disqualified for appointment, under these rules:

i. …

ii. …

iii. …

iv. …

v. A person who has been convicted for any offence in any court of law.

¶22

vi. A person who is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude.”

¶23

8. Insofar as the first Clause is concerned, the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar’s case (1 supra) held that summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose or for entry into or retention in Government Service. It is not necessary to challenge Rule 3 (G)(v) of the Rules because when fine amount imposed by the competent criminal Court is less than Rs.2,000/-, it does not amount to a conviction. Obviously Rule 3(G)(v) of the Rules would only apply to those persons who were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine more than Rs.2,000/-.

¶24

9. Coming to Rule 3 (G)(vi) of the Rules, the offence alleged against the applicant is only causing public nuisance. In Sandeep Kumar’s case (1 supra) when the offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC does not amount to moral turpitude, the offences falling under Sections 290 and 323 IPC are lesser offences when compared to offence under Section 325 IPC. Therefore, the public nuisance and causing simply injury do not amount to a disqualification on the ground of moral turpitude. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly given a direction to the official respondents to approve the selection of the applicant and that

¶25

order needs no interference by this court. The writ petition is devoid of merits.

¶26

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶27

______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS June 09, 2014 PN

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶29

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.15586 of 2014

¶31

June 09, 2014

¶32

The Government of a.P., v. Ammula Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of a.P., v. Ammula Raj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs K.Reddaiah

T. Satya Kumar, Vs The District Collector and Chairman

B.Sujatha, Vs The Commissioner and Director of School Education

The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Vs a. Rajesh Babu

G. Nagarajarao Vs The Director General

The Commissioner of Police Vs K.Raja Ramamohan Rao, Hc 1463