Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D Ramesh, J
K. Swamalatha – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 34520/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Talari Rajeswari
For the Respondents: GP for Services I
Employers must consider the nature of criminal antecedents and the outcome of proceedings (such as acquittal) when deciding on a candidate's appointment, particularly for trivial offenses, following the guidelines established in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the decision of the respondents to withhold her appointment and training as a Police Constable due to a pending criminal case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadiri, on 11.02.2026. The court observed that the petitioner's case should be reconsidered in light of this acquittal. The primary issue was whether the withholding of appointment based on a trivial pending criminal case is sustainable after an acquittal. The court relied on the guidelines established by the Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, which dictate that employers should consider the nature of the offense and whether the candidate truthfully disclosed the information. The court reasoned that for trivial offenses or cases resulting in acquittal, the employer has the discretion to condone the lapse or proceed with the appointment. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the above referred guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No.3 and 4 in withholding the petitioner's Police Constable appointment and training due to a trivial pending case under Section 324 IPC as illegal and unconstitutional Direct the respondents more particularly respondent No.3 to consider my representation to permit the petitioner to join the Police Constable training scheduled from 16.12.2025 without reference to the pending petty criminal case
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation dt.04.12.2025 and permitting the petitioner to join training pending disposal of this writ petition
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in withholding the petitioner’s Police Constable appointment and training due to a trivial pending case under Section 324 IPC as illegal and arbitrary.
After filing the writ petition, in C.C.No.199 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kadiri, the petitioner was impleaded as A.3 and the said case was considered and the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 11.02.2026. In the said circumstances as the petitioner was acquitted, the petitioner’s case has to be considered by the respondents as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others 1(2016) 8 SCC 471
The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the selections have been completed and there is nothing to be completed. Hence, the question of considering the case of the petitioner at this stage does not arise.
Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels and also considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the identical issue and framed the following guidelines, which read as follows:
“Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts
