IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that suppression of criminal history does not automatically disqualify candidates; each case must be assessed on its individual merits and circumstances.

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the review petitioners and Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, Sri Haranath Reddy Soma, Sri T.S.Venkataramana & M. Kesava Rao, appearing for the respondents in all the review petitions.

2. These review petitions are filed to review the common judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.33306/2012, 17758/2013, 24990/2014 & 29006/2018.

Facts of the case:

3. The respondents in W.P.No.33304 of 2012, W.P.No.177518 and W.P.No.24000 of 2014 were initially selected as police constable in the State Police Service. The respondent in W.P.No.29006 of 2018 was selected as Reserve Sub Inspector (AR) as they were found to be qualified and eligible for appointment. Later on, on the ground of suppression of the factum of their involvement in respective criminal cases in the attestation form, the respondent in W.P.No.330306 of 2012 who was undergoing training and was in probation, was discharged from service and with respect to the respondents in other writ petitions, their selection was cancelled. All the respondents filed separate original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT). The same were allowed. The impugned orders were set aside by the Tribunal. The petitioners –State of A.P and its authorities preferred writ petitions as mentioned above. All the writ petitions have been dismissed by the common judgment and order dated 26.04.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench. The writ petitioners of the writ petitions have preferred the respective review applications as mentioned above.

4. In W.P.No.29006 of 2023 the Tribunal held that there was no suppression of material fact. On a specific query made to the learned Government Pleader, if that finding of the Tribunal was challenged in the writ petition, he fairly submitted that there was no challenge to such finding before the writ Court.

5. The review petitions are being considered and decided by this common judgment as they arise of common judgment and common arguments have been advanced.

Judgment under Review:

6. The Coordinate Bench, deciding the writ petitions was of the view that the criminal cases related to trivial offences and were during the young age of the respondents. They had already been acquitted, even prior to issuance of the notification for recruitment. Applying the ratio laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532 and Commissioner of Police and another vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 to the facts of those cases, the orders of the Tribunal were held to be perfectly sustainable under law and finding no legal flaw or infirmity or illegality in the orders of the Tribunal, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Submissions of the learned GP:

7. Learned Government Pleader raised the first submission that the suppression of material fact in relating to the involvement of the respondents in the criminal cases by itself would incur the disqualification to be appointed to the post of constable and RSI. Consequently the appointment or the selection as the case may be of the respondents was liable to be cancelled in the discretion of the departmental authorities. He submitted that in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 7 SCC 536, it was held that the suppression of information in the attestation forms relating to involvement in the criminal cases would incur disqualification of the candidate for selection and appointment. The selection was liable to be cancelled and the employee if appointed and was in probation, was liable to be discharged. Nature of the offence, being trivial or otherwise and acquittal or no acquittal, was not a relevant fact to be taken into consideration.

8. Learned Government Pleader, advanced second submission that Paras 21 and 22 of the recruitment notification Rc.No.670/R&T/Genl.2/2008 dated