IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22654 of 2006 Between: Md. Rafeeq, Badge No.5971, Driver, S/o. Mahamoodsab, R/o.Narayanpet, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep.by its Regional Manager, Mahaboobnagar Region,at Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narayanpet, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in deleting the name of the petitioner from the selection list on the allegation of involving in a criminal case, which was ended in acquittal, vide Proc.No.P1/123(10/06-NRPT, Dt.29-7-2006 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary, contrary to the regulations of the corporation, against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 22654 of 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deleting the name of the petitioner from the selection list on the allegation of involving in a criminal case which was ended in acquittal vide Proceedings No. P1/123(1)/06-NRPT dated 29.7.2006, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Regulations of the Corporation and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as driver. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notiﬁcation in the year 2006, issued by the APSRTC, he applied for the post of Driver and was selected and appointed as such. While that being so, 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice on 19.7.2006 alleging that on veriﬁcation it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case vide Cr.No. 9 of 2003 under Section 324 and 504 IPC of P.S. Madduru and sought for explanation of the petitioner as to why action should not be taken since he ﬁled a false statement. According to the petitioner, the said crime was compromised and to that eﬀect a certiﬁcate was issued by the police authority. The 2 nd respondent, without considering the same, terminated him from service by deleting his name from the select list, vide impugned order dated 29.7.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said crime was nothing to do with his employment in the Corporation. Further, as on the date of his selection, the said crime was not pending and the same was closed as compromised. Therefore, even assuming that he was involved in such crime, the same should not have been taken seriously. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. The respondents ﬁled a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. The purport of the counter is that the petitioner has suppressed the relevant information at the time of his appointment as Driver into the service of the Corporation. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, if there is any suppression as to involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case, his services were liable to be terminated. Therefore, when it was found on veriﬁcation that the petitioner was involved in a crime at P.S. Madduru, his name was directed to be deleted from the select-list. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents is in consonance with the agreement entered into between the parties and in view of the suppression of information by the petitioner. As such, no interference is called for into the order passed by the respondents by this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned proceedings and other material made available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner seems to have involved in Cr.No.9 of 2003 under Sections 147, 324 and 504 IPC on the ﬁle of P.S. Madduru of Mahabubnagar District and the said crime was compromised before the Lok Adalat at the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodangal on 7.5.2005 and a certiﬁcate to this eﬀect was also given by the concerned Station House Oﬃcer on 25.7.2006. The petitioner was appointed on 8.5.2006 and the show-cause notice was issued on 19.7.2006. These facts themselves would reveal that even prior to his appointment the crime registered against the petitioner under Sections 147, 324 and 504 IPC was compromised in Lok Adalat on 7.5.2005. Therefore, even assuming that there is any suppression of such information, it would not have debarred the petitioner from seeking employment into the service of the Corporation. Only in cases where moral turpitude is involved, probably the respondents would take the matter seriously for suppression of such information. In this case, admittedly the crime was compromised and it was not there in the eye of law as on the date of his appointment on 8.5.2006 and show-cause notice on 19.7.2006. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents would not have passed the impugned order deleting the name of the petitioner from the select list on the ground that there was suppression of information etc. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith as a contract driver and continue him as per the terms and conditions of appointment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 15-11-2008. MVB.