JUDGMENT :

Kurian Joseph, J. - Leave granted.

2. Appellants participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of police constables S.C.T.P.C. (Civil) (Men) initiated as per Notification dated 30.12.2008 issued by the first Respondent. According to the Appellants, as there was inordinate delay in the announcement of results of the written examination, they staged a dharna in front of the District Police Office, Kakinada along with many other candidates on 17.04.2010 demanding announcement of the results without delay. It is alleged that the protestors were removed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kakinada II Police Station and were taken to the police station and were released after some time. Subsequently, the results were announced. Appellants were successful and, on being selected, they were sent for the nine months induction training w.e.f. 17.04.2011. While they were undergoing the training, Memorandum dated 20.04.2011 was issued by the first Respondent stating that the Appellants were selected on account of an oversight regarding their involvement in a criminal case and, hence, their selection should be cancelled. Accordingly, the Principal of the Police Training College discharged the Appellants and four others as per memorandum dated 21.4.2011. The Appellants approached the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which by order dated 28.09.2011, dismissed their applications holding as follows:

"The applicants signed the attestation forms on 27.12.2010, 28.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 respectively and in column No. 16, they declared that they were not involved in any criminal case and they were not arrestee. The incident took place on 17.4.2010 whereas the attesting forms were signed by the applicants on 27.12.2010, 28.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 respectively. Clearly the applicants suppressed the information regarding the registration of the case and also their arrest. Therefore, there are no merits in the OA., and the O.A. is, accordingly, dismissed...

3. The order of the Administrative Tribunal was challenged before the High Court, leading to the impugned order dated 10.04.2012. The High Court concurred with the view taken by the Administrative Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the Appellants that they were not aware of their involvement in any criminal case. According to them, they were not arrested; they were only removed from the place of dharna to the police station and were released after some time. It is in such circumstances only, while filling-up the attestation form, they stated that they were not involved in any criminal case. It is only later that they came to know that the police had registered FIR No. 74 of 2010 against them on the file of the Kakinada II Town Police Station, East Godavari District in connection with the alleged incident of dharna. Appellants content that had they been aware of this fact, they would have specifically mentioned it when the attestation forms were submitted.

5. For the purpose of easy reference, we shall extract the relevant portion of the attestation form:

"16. Whether you were involved in any criminal case? Yes No

If yes, indicate

(a) Crime No.

(b) Year

(c) Name of the Police Station

(d) Name of the district

(e) Whether you were arrested by police? Yes No

(f) Whether you were prosecuted by the police in a court of law? If so, indicate the present stage of this case:

(1) under trial

(2) convicted

(3) compounded

(4) acquitted

Note: (1) if convicted whether such conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal or set aside by the appellate Court if appealed against:

(2) If involved in a criminal case subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be informed immediately to the authority whom the attestation form has been submitted earlies failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information

(3) If you were involved in more than one criminal case? Yes No

(Emphasis supplied)”

6. The first Respondent has filed a counter aff