IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 6 4 5 OF 2004 Between: The Inspector General, CISF Eastern Sector Headquarters, 19 Telegraph colony, Kidwaipuri Patna & 2 Ors. …. Appellants V/s. Akkapalli Babu s/o Lingaiah 34 years, Occupation Constable, CISF Unit NALCO Damanjodi, Now r/o Pedakndkur village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda district. …. Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri B. Narayana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri D.Dasaradha Ramireddy GP for Revenue Sri Venugopal Reddy THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 6 4 5 of 2004 ORDER : (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment in WP.No.16122 of 2000 dated 09-12-2003. 2. The factual background is that the writ petitioner working as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force was issued a show cause notice dated 03-9-1999 directing him to explain as to why he should not be removed from service as he suppressed the information about his involvement in Cr.No.53 of 1989 of Ramagundam Police Station under sections 457 and 380 IPC while obtaining the employment. The writ petitioner claimed to have submitted an explanation that as per advice of somebody, he wrote “no” in answer to the relevant question as no case was pending against him on the date of filling up of attestation form and as he was not conversant with reading and writing English. He further stated that in CC.No. 427 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad, he was acquitted after full trial in 1991, whereas he filled up attestation form in 1996. Claiming that he had no malafide intention of suppressing the information, he sought for condonation of his lapse. 3. However, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of termination from service and in appeal the appellate authority also confirmed the same. 4. Challenging the said termination from service, the writ petition was filed which was resisted by the official respondents contending that the wilful suppression of factual information about his involvement, arrest and prosecution in the criminal case made the integrity of the writ petitioner doubtful and rendered him unfit to be a member of armed forces. 5. The learned Judge in the impugned judgment referred to the decision in A.SAGAR V/s. STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS reported in 2003 (1) ALD-380 (DB) wherein it was held that as on the date of submission of attestation form and the application by the person involved therein, the criminal case registered against him ended in acquittal and consequently material which was anterior to sending the person concerned to undergo training could not have been again used against him to deprive him of his legitimate right of appointment. The learned Judge also referred to the decision of another Division Bench in WP.No.14878 of 2003, dated 22-07-2003 wherein following the above decision, the Division Bench noted a similar situation of the person involved in the criminal case having been acquitted much prior to the employment and the filling up of the attestation form. The Division Bench concurred with the Tribunal in making such a lapse not a ground to deny the employment. The learned Judge therefore considered the orders of termination of service of the writ petitioner to be illegal and liable to be set aside and consequently the official respondents were directed to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including backwages, increments etc., forthwith. 6. The writ appeal is filed contending that the writ petition ought not to have been allowed as filling up the attestation form truly and correctly is a condition precedent for any person intending to join Central Industrial Security Force and the decisions relied on by the learned single Judge have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellants also contended that the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court were not considered by the learned single Judge and therefore requested the writ petition to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the parties are heard. 8. The point for consideration is whether setting aside the termination order of the writ petitioner is not legal and has to be interfered with. 9. Sri B. Narayana Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decision of the Apex Court in KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS. V/s. RAM RATAN YADAV[1], to contend that even suppression of information about involvement in criminal cases much prior to the filling up of the attestation form would amount to violation of terms and conditions of the offer made for the employment and therefore termination order has to be sustained. It is however seen from the decision that the Apex Court was concluding against the employee in that case on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. The Apex Court noted therein that the criminal case was pending against the employee on the date when he filled the attestation form and therefore the information given by the employee against the relevant columns 12 and 13 as “no” is plainly suppression of material information and false statement and the employee therein was holder of B.A., B.Ed. and M.Ed., degrees and therefore the Apex Court concluded that assuming even his medium of instruction was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he did not study English language at all at any stage of his education. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court rejected the contention that the employee could not correctly understand the contents of the relevant column nos. 12 and 13 and it also observed that if the employee could not understand certain English words, he could have certainly taken help of some body. It was on such factual findings that the Apex Court went on to note that the purpose of seeking information as per column nos. 12 and 13 was with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the person concerned to continue in service or not and the same being a serious matter, the employee could not have been directed to continue in service by the High Court. 10. The factual background of the present case is totally distinct and different and in the representation submitted by the writ petitioner in response to the show cause notice issued to him regarding the issue, the writ petitioner clearly stated that he studied only upto 10th standard in Telugu Medium and could read or write only English of a very low standard. He stated positively that he took the assistance of some persons who were present at the interview camp at Ramagundam in filling up the relevant attestation form and he claims that he was advised to write ‘yes’ if any case was pending against him and to write ‘no’ if no case is pending. He was similarly advised to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to any arrest in connection with such cases. As no case was pending against the writ petitioner since 1991, he claims to have answered the relevant questions as “no”. 11. In the order of termination of services by the disciplinary authority or in the order of the appellate authority confirming the said decision, there was no attempt to provide any reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner to prove the fact that he took the assistance of some persons present at the interview camp at Ramagundam before filling up the attestation form and he was misled by such persons. His claim that he studied only upto 10th class in Telugu medium and he was not conversant or familiar with English and Hindi terms used in the attestation form was not dealt with either in the original order or in the appellate order. It is only on the ground of a disciplined force not being the place for such a person who suppressed such information that the order of termination was passed. It is also seen from the material on record that in CC.No.427 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad the writ petitioner was acquitted on 15-11-1991 itself, as the only witness examined in that case for the prosecution could not identify any of the alleged culprits including the writ petitioner. It was a clean acquittal in the absence of any evidence or record connecting him with the commission of the offence and that judgment was rendered long long before the writ petitioner attested the form for the purpose of employment. 12. Under the said circumstances, the principles laid down in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan V/s. Ram Ratan Yadav, referred supra-1 do not appear applicable to the facts in the present case and the principles laid down by the Apex Court with reference to the factual background of that case are clearly distinguishable in the light of the contents of the attestation form as filled up by the writ petitioner being due to the circumstances reasonably explained by the writ petitioner. The learned single Judge cannot be therefore considered to have applied the ratio of Sagar’s case and the other case by Division Benches of this Court incorrectly to the facts of the present case and the impugned judgment is not susceptible to interference in writ appeal. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE B . PRAKASH RAO ________________________________________ JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD 14-07-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 6 4 5 OF 2004 ORDER of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) Circulation Entry No. 37 Date: 13-07-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L [1] ) (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases-437