Dismissed

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

Telangana HC9 Jun 2014WP/33000/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order that directed the government to appoint a selected police cadet. The Court held that an offence under Section 290 IPC punishable by a small fine does not amount to a conviction or involve moral turpitude under the Police Rules.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33000 of 2012

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 22-082012 in O.A.No.6924 of 2011 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶5

2. The respondent herein is the applicant, and the petitioners herein are the respondents, in O.A.No.6924 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶6

3. The applicant filed the 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 cases, as illegal. The said O.A. was allowed 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 of the Supreme Court in PAWAN

¶7

KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER^[1] .

¶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 grounds the applicant was disqualified for appointment namely:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the un-official respondent herein/applicant contended that the applicant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 290 IPC in S.T.C.No.98 of 2006 and S.T.C.No.9 of 2007 both on the file of the IV Special Metropolican Magistrate, Vijayawada and imposed a fine of Rs.75/- and 50/- respectively vide jugments dated 14-092006 and 08-01-2007 respectively and it does not amount to a conviction. He also contended that in view of Pawan Kumar’s decision (1 supa), the offence under Section 290 IPC is causing nuisance in the public street or locality, it does not come within the purview of the conduct involving in moral turpitude. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶12

6. In pursuance of the notification issued for the post of SCT PC (Civil), the applicant 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 done on the ground of his involvement in S.T.C.No.98 of 2006 and S.T.C.No.9 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 290 IPC and as he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.75/- and Rs.50/respectively for the said offence.

¶13

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 reads as follows:

¶14

“(G) Disqualification for appointment: The candidates falling

¶15

under the following categories shall be disqualified for appointment, under these rules:

¶16

i. …

¶17

ii. … iii. … iv. …

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

8. Insofar as the first Clause is concerned, the Supreme Court in Pawan 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 a 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. Therefore, obviously Rule 3(G)(v) of the Rules would only apply to those persons who were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of more than Rs.2,000/-.

¶21

9. Coming to Rule 3 (G)(vi) of the Rules, the offence alleged against applicant is only causing public nuisance. In Pawan Kumar’s case (1 supra) when the offence punishable under Section 294 IPC, which provides punishment for obscenity does not amount to conduct involving moral turpitude, the offence under Section 290 IPC is lesser offence when compared to offence under Section 294 IPC. Therefore, the public nuisance does not amount to conduct involving moral turpitude. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly given a direction to the official respondents to approve the selection of the applicant and that order needs no interference by this court. The writ petition is devoid of merits.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.33000 of 2012

¶27

June 09, 2014