ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner filed an O. A. challenging order No. RD/lc/75-99, dated 27-4-2000 issued by the Post Master General, Kurnool region, Kurnool terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as EDMC/da from 30th June, 1998. A notice was issued to him on 23-3-99 asking him why his services be not terminated in view of the report of the police regarding verification of his antecedents. Subsequently another notice was given to him on 5-6-99 asking him to submit his explanation within three days. These notices were challenged by the petitioner in O. A. No. 1339/99. This o. A. was dismissed by the Tribunal with the following order:"in view of the above we do not find any merits in this O. A. The O. A. has to be dismissed. However, the applicant has got a further grievance redressal machinery available to him by filing an appeal to the higher authorities i. e. , either to the Director of Postal Services or to the Post Master General of that division. He may take such action if he feels that he is not guilty of the charges. "thereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed an appeal against the notices issued to him and requested the appellate authority to drop further proceedings. The 4th respondent considered the appeal and rejected the appeal holding that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case when he applied for the post and that he had been arrested by police and was remanded to judicial custody. The order of respondent no. 4 was challenged on the ground that pendency of a criminal case against a candidate could not be a ground for termination. He also submitted that subsequently he had been acquitted by the court and respondents should have considered this aspect of the matter and reinstated him.

( 2 ) NOW the only question is, whether the petitioner had suppressed the material information when he applied for the job and whether he was duty bound to disclose that he was involved in a criminal case when he applied for the job and if he was bound to disclose what would be the consequences if he had not disclosed this information.

( 3 ) BEFORE going to the judgments which have been placed before us, a look at the form which the petitioner had filed up for seeking the job would be necessary. This form is termed as attestation form . This form is partly in the questionnaire form and under clause 12 (1) amongst other things following questions are framed;12. (l) (a) Have you ever been arrested? (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? (c) Have you ever been kept under detention? (d) Have you ever been bound down? (e) Have you ever been fined by a court of law? (f) Have you ever been convicted by a court of law for any offence? (g ). . . . . . . . (h ). . . . . . . (i) If any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form. In reply to all these questions the petitioner submitted no . It is usual that when appointments are made the department concerned send the relevant material to the concerned police for verification of the antecedents of the appointees. It is during this verification that the respondents were informed that the petitioner had been arrested and a criminal case was pending against him. Admittedly, the petitioner had suppressed material information. Not only suppressed the material information but had given wrong information. In our view it is not important whether the petitioner got acquitted or did not get acquitted, in our view it is very important to know that the petitioner was not a truthful person. Admittedly, he was facing a criminal trial in crime No. 21/97 under Section 8 (B) APPS act, 1997. He was kept in judicial custody from 17-4-97 to 23-4-97 and subsequently released on bail. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this information was not given because the petitioner apprehended that if he disclosed such information he may not be considered for the job. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document