Suppression of material information in employment forms can justify cancellation of candidature, and subsequent acquittal may not warrant consideration for selection/appointment, especially in cases involving serious offences and technical acquittals.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. V. S. Kishore kumar, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to and pertaining to the O. A. No. 1328 of 2005, dated 18.04.2013 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to undergo training as police constable in APSP-II Battalion, Kurnool and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Pursuant to a notification issued in the year 2003 for selection of Police Constable the petitioner applied and was selected. He was allotted A. P. Special Police-II Battalian, Kurnool for training, but was denied the same on the ground that the petitioner was found involved in a Criminal Case vide Crime No.25/2004 in Kodumuru Police Station for offences under Section 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. His provisional selection, along with some others was cancelled on the ground for suppressing the fact of involvement in a criminal case, vide proceedings C.No.A1/1005/2004, dated 29.11.2004. The petitioner was finally acquitted in the criminal case in the year 2009. On the date of the application pursuant to the notification, the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case in the year 2003. In the attestation form, before going to training, in Column No.12 in response to the query with respect to any involvement in any criminal case, arrest by Police, detention or conviction, the petitioner suppressed the fact of involvement in the criminal case and mentioned ‘No’.

4. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1328 of 2005, challenging the proceedings of cancellation and the same was dismissed, initially for default on 29.01.2008, but later on was restored and finally the O.A was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.04.2013.

5. The Tribunal, initially granted interim order dated 24.03.2005 directing the respondents to allow him to undergo training as Police Constable in A.P. Special Police-II Battalian, Kurnool, but not to give the appointment order until further orders. Finally the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. The Tribunal did not accept, the explanation submitted in mentioning ‘No’ in the attestation form, Column No.12. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and subsequently he filed bail application and was released on bail and he also faced the trial before the concerned court. Thus he cannot claim that he was not Yesopu (A.25) as mentioned in the F.I.R or in the charge sheet. His plea, for suppression of fact in attestation form, was found falsified by his conduct. The Tribunal further observed that the selection in which the petitioner was selected was of the year 2003. So after so many years, the respondents cannot be directed to provide employment in pursuance of the notification of 2003 as the lapse of time would also affect the fitness for selection.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the O.A. The reason assigned by the petitioner for not mentioning about the Criminal Case cannot be said to be suppression of fact as in the F.I.R/charge sheet, name Yesopu was mentioned and not the petitioner’s name as J. Giddaiah. He further submitted that after acquittal the petitioner’s case should have been considered by the departmental authorities keeping in view various factors including the antecedents of the petitioner and a decision ought to have been taken which has not been done. The Tribunal instead of dismissing the O.A ought to have directed for consideration of the petitioner’s case in the facts and circumstances as also the antecedent