HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.21644 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 22-04-2010 in O.A. No.289 of 2010 (along with VMA No.331 of 2010 and CA No.204 of 2010), passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the Tribunal allowed the O.A. by setting aside the memo impugned therein and directed the petitioners to issue selection order appointing the 1st respondent as Station Fire Officer. 2. The brief facts stated are that in pursuance to the notification, dated 30-01-2002, issued by the 3rd petitioner, the 1st respondent applied for the post of Stipendary Cadet Trainee S.I. and participated in the selection process. He was provisionally selected and on the ground that he suppressed the information regarding his involvement in criminal case, he was not given the selection orders. Subsequently, the 3rd petitioner issued another notification for the post of Sub- Inspector of Police in Fire Service in the year 2006. The 1st respondent applied for the same and in the application form he mentioned about his involvement in Crime No.87 of 2001. He was selected and was supplied with Attestation Form and was asked to submit originals on or before 12-04-2007 to the 4t h petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted the Attestation forms duly filing the information regarding his involvement in Criminal cases. However, the 1st respondent was not given the selection order and was not sent for training, while the other selected candidates were sent for training on 06-06-2010. On verification, the 1st respondent came to know that he was not issued the selection orders or sent for training as he was involved in Crime No.87 of 2001 though the same ended in acquittal in 2001. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed O.A. No.3073 of 2007 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the same was disposed of on 17-08-2009 directing the petitioners to verify the Attestation Form with regard to the information given by the 1st respondent and consider his case for sending him to training for the post of Station Fire Officer. The 1st respondent submitted a representation to the petitioners, enclosing the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.3073 of 2009, dated 17-08-2009. But, the 2nd petitioner rejected his representation through memo, dated 06-01-2010, on the ground that he has suppressed the information regarding his involvement in three criminal cases in the Attestation Form. The 1st respondent further stated that his case was initially rejected on the ground of involvement in criminal case and that he was involved in one criminal case only, but not in three cases as alleged by the petitioners. As the petitioners did not consider his case for selection as Station Fire Officer, the 1st respondent filed the present O.A. 3. The petitioners filed a counter – affidavit in the O.A., admitting the selection of the 1st respondent as Station Fire Officer. They further stated that as the 1st respondent involved in criminal cases, his selection was rejected and, therefore, they requested for dismissal of the O.A. 4. The Tribunal after hearing both the counsel and after perusing the material on record, through the impugned order, dated 22-04-2010, allowed the O.A. by setting aside the Memo impugned therein and directed the petitioners to issue selection order appointing the 1st respondent as Station Fire Officer and send him for training. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services –I and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Services – I contends that the Tribunal erred in allowing the O.A., though there are three Criminal Cases pending against the 1st respondent and that the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that there was only one criminal case filed against the 1st respondent i.e. Crime No.87 of 2001 and the other Crimes, as alleged by the petitioners, relate to other persons and hence, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A . The learned counsel, therefore, submits that there are on grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. A perusal of the record discloses that the 1st respondent involved in a criminal case and that the same was ended in acquittal. The 1st respondent also stated about the same in the Attestation Form. The Tribunal after a detailed discussion, observed as follows: “In the circumstances, when the applicant was not found guilty and not convicted and sentenced by any of the competent court, it can not be said that his character and conduct are bad to reject his case for selection as Station Fire Officer. Further it is not the case of the respondents that except above two cases there is any other incident which came to their adverse notice. More over, this information of his involvement was furnished by the applicant himself and the respondents came to know about this through the information furnished by the application in the Attestation Form.” 8. From the above, it is evident that the criminal case filed against the 1st respondent was ended in acquittal and the said information has been furnished by the 1st respondent in the Attestation Form. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent has suppressed the information regarding his involvement in criminal case. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. For the foregoing, the writ petition is failed and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J February 08, 2011. __________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J KTL