IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5813 of 2005 Between: 1 The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspectof General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur. 3 The Chairman State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Patchala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. D.No. 26-42-58, A.T. Agraharam, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT 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 any Writ or Proceedings more particularly one in the nature of "WRIT OF CERTIORARI" calling for the records pertaining to the order passed on 03-09-04 in O.A.No. 1993/2004 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent : MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 03.09.2004, passed in O.A.No.1993 of 2004 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and for quashing the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the notification dated 30.01.2002 issued by the third petitioner, the respondent-applicant had applied for selection to the post of Stipendary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector and was provisionally selected under SC-B Reservation category, on 22.07.2002. The respondent was called on 31.07.2002, along with other provisionally selected candidates, for submitting the originals and filling up the attestation forms. On 01.08.2002, the said attestation forms together with originals were sent for verification of antecedents of the candidates and genuinenity of their certificates to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur. The Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, Hyderabad, after due verification, sent a report, dated 12.08.2002, without mentioning any adverse remarks in respect of all the candidates. Thereupon, the respondent was sent for medical examination on 26.08.2002 along with the other candidates. While so, the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, informed the Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, Hyderabad, through a message that the respondent was figured as accused in Crime No.87 of 2001, under Section 509 IPC of Nagarampalem Police Station, arrested on 03.05.2001 and acquitted on 06.06.2001 by Lok Adalath in terms of compromise. The petitioners state that the respondent has willfully suppressed the factum of his involvement, arrest and remand in the said criminal case, at the time of filling up the attestation form at column No.12. They further state that though the respondent was acquitted, he has to give correct information being an aspirant to the post of Sub-Inspector in Police Department and therefore, he was not sent for training. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed O.A.No.1993 of 2004. The Tribunal vide its order, dated 03.09.2004, allowed the said O.A. by directing the petitioners to send the respondent-applicant for next training programme. Challenging the same, the authorities filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that the respondent has not furnished the correct information at Column No.12 of the attestation form, though he was involved in a criminal case filed under Section 509 IPC. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in UNION OF INDIA v. BIPAD BHANKAN GAYEN[1], wherein it was held as under: “We find that the observations in the above cited case are fully applicable to the present matter as well. We are of the opinion that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent to withhold relevant information and it is this omission which has led to the termination of his service during the probation period. The question of any penal consequences of a reading of the principles of natural justice in such a situation cannot be countenanced. The mere fact that the respondent has been subsequently discharged in the criminal cases will not in any way absolve him of his liability to have filled in the attestation form correctly and accurately as on the date he had done so. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and dismiss the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment reported in A. SAGAR v. STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, HYDERABAD[2], wherein it was observed as under: “In our considered opinion, the language employed in column No.12 is somewhat vague and indefinite. It appears to us that arrest by the police unless resulted in conviction is of no consequence. Precisely for the said reason, the petitioner stated ‘no’ since he has not been convicted by any criminal Court. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 07.02.2009, wherein it was held as under: “Government after careful examination of the matter hereby issue a special relaxation to appoint the selected candidates of notification 3rd read above, who have suppressed the information with regard to their previous employment as required under 3(G)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999, subject to the condition that an affidavit/undertaking of their previous employment be taken from these candidates that they are honorably discharged from the previous service and the concealment of fact does not jeopardize the interest of Government at any point of time, and if anything adverse comes to the notice of Government, they shall be liable for necessary action. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 08.12.2008 passed in W.P.No.21061 of 2008, wherein this Court, by relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY v. SUSHIL KUMAR[3], gave liberty to the petitioner therein to make a representation to the respondents concerned to consider his case, upon which, they shall dispose of the same in accordance with the Rules in vogue. 5. The point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the respondent has willfully suppressed the factum of his involvement in the criminal case, while filling up column No.12 of attestation form. 6. The Apex Court, in UNION OF INDIA’s case (1) supra, has clearly and categorically held that when the petitioner though discharged subsequently in the criminal case, it will not in any way absolve him of his liability to have filled in the attestation form correctly and accurately as on the date he had done so. Therefore, a person, who wants to join in service, must indicate about his involvement in a criminal case and arrest while submitting the application. 7. In the instant case, the respondent willfully has not furnished the information to the petitioners about his involvement in a criminal case. This action of the respondent amounts to suppression of fact and that he applied to the post of Sub- Inspector of Police with unclean hands. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioners have rightly not sent the respondent for training. 8. In these circumstances and following the said judgment of the Apex Court, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 03.09.2004, passed in O.A.No.1993 of 2004 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, is set aside. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY ,J Date:10.07.2009 SJ [1] 2008 AIR SCW 4058 [2] 2003 ALD 1 380 [3] (1996) 11 SCC 605