High Court dismissed Writ Petition challenging Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order directing respondent, acquitted of minor excise offence, for police induction training despite suppression of criminal record in appointment form.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.17807 OF 2013
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 02.01.2013, in Original Application No.10143 of 2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same.
2. Respondent herein filed the aforesaid Original Application to direct petitioners herein to send him for induction training to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (AR) (Men) without reference to the Criminal Case in Calendar Case No.108 of 2005, in which he was acquitted by the competent Criminal Court on 19.09.2007.
3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Original Application setting aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.684/R&T/Genl.2/2010, dated 20.04.2011, and directed the petitioners herein to send the respondent for induction training for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (AR) (Men) in Nalgonda District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging the said order, Government filed the present Writ Petition.
4. In pursuance of the notification issued by petitioner No.2 herein in Rc.No.670/R&T/Genl.2/2008, dated 30.12.2008, the
respondent herein applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (AR) (Men) and he was successful in the physical endurance test as well as in the written test. As in the Attestation form which has to be filled up by the respondent, he suppressed the material particulars with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, he was not issued appointment order. The Tribunal, having placed reliance on a decision reported in COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE AND OTHERS V. SANDEEP KUMAR[1] , allowed the Original Application.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services for (Telangana State) contended that in the attestation form as the respondent suppressed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case, the petitioners refused to give appointment order to him and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant contended that prior to issuance of notification, the respondent was acquitted by the competent Criminal Court and it is an honourable acquittal; that it is not a case of serious offence of murder or rape so as to deny the appointment of the respondent as Police Constable (AR) (Men); that following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner’s case (1supra), the Tribunal rightly directed the petitioners to send the respondent for training and that order needs no interference by this Court.
7. Facts are not in dispute. Prior to issuance of notification, the respondent/applicant involved in a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 31 (1) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and he was shown as Accused No.3 in Calendar Case No.108 of 2005. The competent Criminal Court after considering
the evidence on record, found that charges levelled against the respondent and others were not established beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, they were acquitted. That order of acquittal has become final.
8. The allegation against the respondent herein is that he allowed the customers to remain present in the Bar even after the timings prescribed by the Excise Department. Respondent is only Attender in the Bar. He was acting on the instructions of his Master/Employer. It cannot be deemed to have been involved in a serious offence so as to deny the benefit of giving appointment to the respondent. The Tribunal, following the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court (1 supra), held that when it is not a case of murder, dacoity or rape, lenient view should be taken in the matter. In view of the fact that it is a simple and minor offence and that too even prior to issuance of notification, the respondent was involved in an offence and further acquitted by the competent criminal case, the Tribunal rightly allowed the Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without costs. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
_______________ JUSTICE ANIS OCTOBER 07, 2014 YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.17807 OF 2013
DATE:07.10.2014
YVL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of a police constable should be barred due to suppression of criminal acquittal details in the attestation form.
Whether the tribunal's order directing induction training despite suppression of criminal history was correct in light of the acquittal.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's order should be allowed or dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(2011) 4 SCC 644Referred¶9
Commissioner of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Government
Respondent/Applicant
Justice K.C.Bhanu
Justice Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
