DODLA PENCHALAIAH v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

Judgment

09.03.2026 : 06.05.2026 Date of pronounced : 06.05.2026 Date of uploading APHC010554992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3565] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 1364/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the Order of Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. (AT) No. 22 of 2021 by allowing the present Writ Appeal. Between:

1. DODLA PENCHALAIAH, S/O. PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. KAMAKSHI COLONY, BUCCHIREDDYPALEM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. AND ...APPELLANT

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI - 522 502

2. THE STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, ANDHRA PRADESH., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. - 522 502

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE-524001.

4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.- 522 237 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to 2 Condone the delay of 69 days in filing the e accompanying Writ Appeal against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in W.P.(A.T.) No.22 of 2021, IA NO: 2 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 to stay the operation and effect of the Order, dated 30.04.2025 passed in W.P.(A.T.) No.22 of 2021, by directing the respondents authorities to reserve one post of Police Constable (Civil) - 2008 (II) for the petitioner, pending disposal of this Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant:

1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL No.1364 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 30.04.2025

passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(AT) No.22 of 2021.

2. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard Mr.V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and carefully perused the material available on record.

4. Case of the petitioner: (i) The petitioner is belonging to a Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) community. He applied for recruitment to the post of Police Constable pursuant to the notification-2008 (2) of State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh. He appeared for the preliminary test (preliminary selection test of 5 km run) conducted in the month of March 2009 and he was qualified. Thereafter, he appeared and qualified in Physical Measurement Test conducted on 16.07.2009. Written examination was conducted on 13.09.2009. He also participated in Physical Efficiency Test (PET) performance (men) in various categorized tests and he was qualified. 4 (ii) In the village of the petitioner, there were political groups which were frequently making complaints against each other. The petitioner has no role either in the politics or in the village affairs. He is searching for employment. He was informed through his family members that on 03.01.2010 at about 15-00 hours, an altercation was took place between the revenue officials i.e., Mandal Surveyor, Buchireddypalem; the Village Revenue Officer, Bit-II; one Seenaiah and others. On 03.01.2010, basing on the complaint, a case in Crime No.4 of 2010 was registered for the offence under Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Seenaiah and others. Except the petitioner, all his friends were implicated in the said crime, who are agriculturists. Again on the same day, another crime i.e., Crime No. 6 of 2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code against Seenaiah and others including the petitioner herein, who implicated as Accused No.13. The defacto complainant in Crime No.6 of 2010 is inimically disposed towards the petitioner’s family and knowing the fact that the petitioner was selected in the police constable recruitment, he was implicated in the second case as afterthought. Though there is no offence attributable against the petitioner, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.107 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur. The petitioner was informed that he would not be considered for training due to pendency of the charge sheet. (iii) The petitioner is advised that pending criminal case, he cannot prohibit undergoing for training and accordingly, the petitioner approached the 5 Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1381 of 2013. During pendency of the said O.A., the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.107 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, by its judgment, dated 19.03.2014. At that stage, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 seeking direction to send him for training due to closure of the criminal case against him. The Tribunal by order, dated

15.09.2014 directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s request for training keeping in view of the acquittal in criminal case. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner’s case was examined and 2nd respondent issued speaking order vide Memo in Rc.No.114/R&T/Admin.2/ 2013, dated

22.12.2014 rejecting the request of the petitioner to send him for training. Subsequently, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was dismissed for default by order, dated

24.06.2016 by the Administrative Tribunal. Seeking to set aside the dismissed for default order, the petitioner filed M.A.No.1675 of 2016 and it was dismissed on 24.10.2017. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order, dated 24.06.2016 has dismissed the O.A. No.1381 of 2013. (iv) Against the order, dated 24.06.2016 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21470 of 2019. A Division Bench of this Court by its order, dated 03.01.2020 set aside the order, dated

24.10.2017 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in M.A.No.1675 of 2016 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013 and restored the O.A. to its file subject to payment of costs. Thereafter, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was restored to its file. After abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the O.A.No.1381 6 of 2013 was transferred to this High Court and it was renumbered as W.P.(AT) No.22 of 2021. After hearing, the learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the same by order, dated 13.04.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this Writ Appeal.

5. The case of the respondents:- (i) Pursuant to the notification issued by the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh in Rc.No.670/R&T/Genl.2/2008, dated 30.12.2008 (2) for filling up the posts of SCT PCs and equivalent ranks. The petitioner applied for the post of SCT PC (Civil, AR and APSP) etc. He participated in the selection process and provisionally selected to the post of SCT PC (Civil) (Men) in Nellore District. During antecedents verification, it came to light that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.6 of 2010 registered on 03.01.2010 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code of Butchireddypalem Police Station as Accused No.13. The case was charge sheeted on 16.02.2010. Subsequently, the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur in its judgment, dated 19.03.2014 acquitted the petitioner under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) It is mentioned at paras 21 and 22 of the notification stating that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. 7 Suppression of material facts or withholding any factual information either in the application or in the attestation form (which would be supplied to the candidates who will be provisionally selected) will disqualify the candidate from being considered for appointment. In the event of any information being found false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected at any time even after appointment, he/she will be discharged from service forthwith by the appointing authority without giving any notice. (iii) Further as per Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. (iv) Para 3(F) of G.O.Ms.No.97 of Home (Legal.II) Department, dated

01.05.2006, it is stated that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. (v) The petitioner has submitted the attestation form on 23.12.2010. A case was registered against the petitioner on 03.01.2010 and charge sheeted on 16.02.2010 and he got acquitted on 19.03.2014. It clearly indicates that the petitioner’s case was pending trial when he submitted the attestation form. He was deliberately suppressed the fact of his involvement in criminal case by not 8 mentioning the details of criminal case in column No.16 of the attestation form. He also signed the declaration stating that he was fully aware that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be a disqualification and likely to render him unfit for employment under the Government. In view of the same, his case was not considered for appointment as Police Constable and order of cancellation of selection was issued on 29.04.2011. By order, dated 15.09.2014 in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the respondent authority to consider the request of the petitioner to send him for training keeping in view of his acquittal in criminal case. The request of the petitioner has been considered once again keeping in view of his acquittal in the said criminal case and it was rejected vide Memo, dated 22.12.2014. The rejection order is in accordance with the relevant rules and as per the decisions of the Apex Court.

6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner: (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere suppression of certain information of trivial nature does not disentitle the petitioner for being considered for appointment to the post of police constable. Taking into fact that the case was ended in acquittal, a lenient view should have been taken. The learned counsel would submit that the request of the petitioner to send for training pursuant to the order, dated 24.06.2016 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, rejected by order, dated 22.12.2014 9 without considering it objectively and reasonably. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner became a scapegoat in the village politics at the behest of the trivial. The petitioner hails from a poor family and with his hard work, he provisionally selected as Police Constable. The learned counsel further submits that only due to fear of loss of job in the event of disclosing the case, the petitioner did not mention the same in the attestation form. The learned counsel contends that except registration of this case, prior to that or after that, there is no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner and no complaints are there. Taking into consideration of the same, the learned single judge ought to have allowed the writ petition in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in identical matters.

7. Submissions of the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents: The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents contends that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the truth and as such the competent authority has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner basing on the observations of the Apex Court. He further contends that the acquittal is not a honourary acquittal after full pledged trial and after considering the whole evidence holding him in such offence is committed or proved but the acquittal is based on hostility of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Government Pleader submits that the case against the petitioner and counter case arisen on the same day as case and counter case due to attack by one 10 party against the other and therefore mere acquittal based on the hostile evidence cannot be treated as a clean acquittal. He further contends that the case against the petitioner is not a trivial offence, but it is a grave offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to appoint the petitioner as a Police Constable which job involves maintenance of law and order. He further contends that when the State has a choice to appoint a person of good character, State should not choose person whose character is dubious and objectionable. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader would submit that Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 vests wide amplitude powers to deny employment based on antecedents in addition to Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules, 1999. Accordingly, he would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge and interference of the same is not required.

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and upon careful examination of the material available on record, the following admitted facts are emerged for consideration: (a) The petitioner submitted application for the post of Police Constable pursuant to the notification, dated 13.12.2008. (b) The petitioner participated in the selection process and provisionally selected to the post of Police Constable in Nellore District. 11 (c) A case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2010, dated 03.10.2010 of Butchireddypalem Police Station and the petitioner was implicated as Accused No.13 and the said case was charge sheeted on 16.02.2010. (d) The petitioner has submitted the attestation form on 23.12.2010. (e) The petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment, dated 13.03.2014 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur. (f) The provisional selection of the petitioner as Police Constable was cancelled by order, dated 29.04.2011. (g) The petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1381 of 2013. (h) On 15.09.2014 in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to consider the request of the petitioner for sending for training in view of his acquittal in criminal case. Pursuant to the said order, the request of the petitioner has been considered and it was rejected vide Memo, dated

22.12.2014. (i) Thereafter, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was dismissed for default by order, dated 24.06.2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and it was restored to its file pursuant to the order, dated 03.10.2020 in W.P.No.21470 of 2019 of a Division Bench by this Court. Subsequently, due to abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the said O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was 12 transferred to this High Court and it was renumbered as W.P.(AT) No.22 of

2021. (j) The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said W.P. (AT) No.22 of 2021 by order, dated 13.04.2025.

9. In this factual position, the issues that arise for consideration before this Court are: (1) Whether the State was justified in cancelling the provisional selection of the appellant/petitioner as Police Constable vide order, dated

29.04.2011 and the Memo No.114/R&T/Admn.2/2013, dated 22.12.2014? (2) To what relief, is the appellant/petitioner entitled to?

10. In fact, the law on this issue is settled by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar1; Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others2 and in the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others3.

11. In Sandeep Kumar’s case (1 supra), the Apex Court made thoughtful observations in the light of the classic judgment in Morris v. Crown Office4 while considering the story of the character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo’s novel Les Miserables, where the character was branded as a thief for stealing