Point of Law: Detention - Petitioner who suppressed the material information in the application form, though disclosed in attestation form placed on record by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I disclosing his involvement and reporting acquittal by Court, it is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner intentionally suppressed a material fact which is mandatory

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring Memo Rc.No.89/R&T/Rect.1/2020 dated 02.07.2020 issued by the second respondent/Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, holding the acquittal of the petitioner’s case as clean acquittal as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and consequently set-aside the same.

2. The factual matrix of the writ petition is as follows:

In pursuance of the Notification vide Rc.No.165/R&T /Genl.1/2008 dated 06.06.2008 issued by the second respondent, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection and appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee – RSI (AR), the petitioner submitted an application. Due to lack of knowledge, the petitioner has not mentioned with regard to false criminal case filed against him in Column No.16, even though the said criminal case was ended in acquittal after issuance of the notification.

3. It is contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No.132 of 2007 on the file of Station House Officer, Markapuram Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under Section 419 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C’) and Section 3 of A.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Mal-Practice and Unfair) Act, 1997 (for short ‘the Act’). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was registered as C.C.No.454 of 2007. The petitioner was tried for the offences punishable under Section 419 I.P.C and Section 3 of the Act by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (henceforth ‘Additional Junior Civil Judge, Markapuram’, as it is mentioned in the order in C.C.No.454 of 2007). After full-fledged trial, the petitioner was found not guilty for various charges and acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C vide calendar and judgment dated 26.08.2009. After disposal of C.C.No.454 of 2007, the petitioner attended for preliminary selection conducted by the State Level Police Recruitment Board on 10.08.2009 and qualified. The petitioner appeared for Physical Measurement Test on 15.07.2010 and also appeared for Written Test on 13.08.2011 and 14.08.2011. In the month of December, 2011, the petitioner was selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee – RSI (AR) (men).

4. While the matter stood thus, the second respondent/ Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board issued Memo dated 18.02.2012 cancelling the provisional selection list of the petitioner on the ground that he involved in a criminal case alleging an offence of moral turpitude. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2553 of 2012 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal assailing the Memorandum issued by the second respondent vide Memo Rc.No.876/R&T/Gen.1/2011 dated 18.02.2012 cancelling his provisional selection. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal, setting-aside the memo dated 12.08.2013. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2553 of 2012 dated 12.08.2013, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed W.P.No.3639 of 2014. This Court disposed of W.P.No.3639 of 2014 following the orders passed in W.P.No.34535 of 2014 dated 23.01.2020 granting liberty to make representation to the second respondent and the second respondent was also directed to pass orders within three months from the date of receipt of such representation. Without considering the detailed representation submitted by the petitioner, enclosing the documents in proper perspective and without exercising discretion in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, passed order ignoring the representation of this petitioner vide Memo Rc.No.89/R&T/Rect.1/2020 dated 02.07.2020.

5. It is the specific contention of this petitioner that, when the petitioner was acquitted honourably, finding him not guilty is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner is not guilty for offence involving on any moral turpitude. In fact, the Additional Judicial Civil Judge, Markapuram, acqui