Dilip B. Bhosale, ACJ.

1. In view of the divergence of opinion expressed by two Division Benches, another Division Bench requested constitution of a Larger Bench to have an authoritative pronouncement on the question “whether suppression of information by the candidate, applying for an employment, regarding his involvement in a criminal case, could be the ground for either rejecting his candidature or canceling his selection or terminating the service, if he has already been appointed?”

2. Reference order was passed on 23.2.2005 in W.P. No.3004 of 2005. The order dated 8.2.2005 passed in O.A.No.6240 of 2004 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) is the subject-matter of the writ petition. The petitioners were selected as Police Constables and their names figured in the provisional selection list. Their selection, however, was cancelled on the ground of suppression of information regarding their involvement in criminal cases while submitting applications for the post of Police Constables.

3. While dealing with the writ petition, the Division Bench noticed divergent opinions expressed by two Division Benches of this Court, one, in A. Sagar v. State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad and others (2003 (1) ALD 380 (DB) and another in K. Prasada Rao v. Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Giddalur Sub-Division, Giddalur, Prakasam District and others (2003 (4) ALD 770 (DB). The Division Bench also noticed two judgments of the Supreme Court while making reference order, in Secretary, Department of Home, A.P., and others v. B.Chinnam Naidu (2005) 2 SCC 746) and in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437). In the concluding paragraph of the reference order, it was observed that “in the light of views expressed in the decisions referred (1) & (2) supra and especially in the backdrop of the decisions of the Apex Court referred (3) & (4) supra and also in the light of the difference of language in the respective columns, it would be appropriate to refer this matter to a Full Bench or a Larger Bench who have an authoritative pronouncement on this aspect.” The reference order, however, did not frame any question as such for consideration. The question framed in opening paragraph of this judgment has been framed with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, we would like to look into all four judgments referred to by the Division Bench so as to settle the correct position of law on this aspect.

4. In A. Sagar (supra) the Division Bench considered the case of petitioner in the light of facts that the information sought in an application against Column Nos.16 & 17 was kept blank and in the attestation form against Column No.12, he had stated ‘No’. In this case also, the petitioner had applied for the post of Police Constable. It is relevant to refer to the contents of Column Nos.16 & 17 in the application form and Column No.12 of the attestation form. Column No.16 had provided the applicant to furnish information about his involvement in any criminal case and arrest by the police. He was also required to furnish full details such as First Information Report number and name of the Police Station. In Column No.17, he was required to furnish information as to whether he had been prosecuted or convicted by the Court of Law in past or facing trial in any case at the relevant time. Column No.12 in the attestation form reads thus:

“Have you ever been arrested by the police, convicted by a court or detained of any offence.”

4. 1 Column Nos.16 & 17 in the application form were left blank by the petitioner. Insofar as Column No.12 in the attestation form is concerned, the petitioner had specifically stated ‘No’. The Division Bench also noticed that the petitioner was acquitted on merits in the criminal cases registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, by the time he was selected and appointed as Police Constable