Point of Law : What is the effect of suppression of involvement/acquittal in the criminal case by the petitioner. The offences as discussed supra are trivial and compoundable in nature. Even if involvement in such criminal case and acquittal was disclosed it would not have altered the situation.

ORDER :

In response to the recruitment notification Rc.No.88/ Rect.admin.1/2018 dated 31.05.2018, the petitioner applied for the post of SCT Police Constable (TSSP). The petitioner was provisionally selected on 24.09.2019. Thereafter, he submitted an attestation form to the department as required by them on 09.10.2019. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 10.03.2020 from the respondent No.3 calling upon him to submit explanation alleging that there was suppression of information about his involvement in a criminal case vide Cr.No.319 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 02.07.2020 stating that the criminal case pending against him was disposed of 08.09.2018 and ended in acquittal; that failure to mention about the criminal case in the attestation form was a mistake due to lack of proper knowledge. It is contended that though the mistake was not intentional, the impugned memo dated 04.11.2020 was issued canceling the selection of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that all offences in Cr.No.319 of 2016 are baliable, trivial in nature and it was a summary trial case. The offences do not involve moral turpitude and do not affect the conscience of the society. Moreover, the competent Court passed award compounding the offence, which is equal to acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that initially the petitioner downloaded the attestation form through online and went to submit the form. But he was supplied with a different attestation form and he was asked to fill it. As a result, he could not concentrate on the change of columns used in the new attestation form, as he was under the impression that involvement in the crime means whether the petitioner has committed any crime. Therefore, he mentioned ‘NO’ against column No.11. Since he mentioned ‘NO’ in the said column, he did not mention all other details in the rest of the boxes in column No.11. Such explanation was given in reply to the show cause notice. At the first instance, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled vide memo Rc.No.213/Rect/Genl./2/2019 dated 07.09.2020. The petitioner filed WP.No.17066 of 2020 challenging the said memo and the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and also keeping in view the acquittal of the petitioner by a competent criminal Court.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner approached the respondents No.2 and 3 along with representation dated 23.10.2020. However, without considering the same in proper perspective, the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 was passed cancelling the selection of the petitioner again. He further submitted that the impugned order of the respondent No.2 is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). The respondent No.2 quoted paras 38.2 and 38.3 of the judgment in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra). In fact, the guidelines mentioned in paras 38.4 and 38.4.1 are applicable to the case of the petitioner, which were ignored by the respondent No.2. The judgment in Civil Appeal No.893 of 2020 dated 31.01.2020, cited in the impugned order, is not applicable to the facts of the case, as the offences alleged therein are under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 336, 337, 427, 379, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, which are serious in nature. Further, the respondent No.2 did not follow the guidelines 38.2 and 38.3 by not considering the special circumstances mentioned by the petitioner while giving the information. Moreover, the fact that the criminal case against the petitioner ended in acquittal was not considered and thus, there is flagrant violation of the guidelines in AVTAR SINGH’s case (1 supra).

4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the