Azmeera Ramesh v. State Level Police Recruitment Board & Ors.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAGHUNATH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27769 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the order, dated 27.06.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1381 of 2007, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same. It is stated that the petitioner is a graduate and belongs to Schedule Tribe. He applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil)(Men) in pursuance of the notification bearing Rc.No.219/R&T/Admn-2/2006, dated 15.03.2006 issued by the first respondent. Though he was provisionally selected for the said post through impugned proceedings dated 14.02.2007 in Memo C.No.1297/A1/2006 issued by the third respondent, his selection was cancelled on the ground that in the application he suppressed about his involvement in a criminal case vide Crime No.37/2005 registered for the offences under sections 302, 201, 364 r/w 34 I.P.C of Chinthakani Police Station, Khammam District. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and filed the above O.A stating that due to rivalries, the relatives of the deceased unnecessarily implicated him in the said crime as Accused No.6 and that subsequently he was acquitted from the said case by judgment dated 19.06.2006. He further stated that due to lack of knowledge and since he was already acquitted in the said criminal case, the relevant column was unfilled. Before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Ram Ratan Yadav [1] and also the judgment of this Court in A. Sagar vs. State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad [2] . I n Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (1 supra) Supreme Court held as follows: requiring information “The object of columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot-claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The high Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation respondent has certified form, information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents of column Nos. 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted. The principles laid down in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (1 supra) were subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. v. B.Chinnam Naidu [3] . But, on facts, the Supreme Court distinguished the case, while approving the principles laid down in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (1 supra). In another judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Koneti Vekateswarulu [4] , the principle laid down by it in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case was followed and held as follows: “The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the photocopy of the application dated 24-7-1999 from which it is clearly seen that as against Column No. 11 the First Respondent has given no information the column blank by leaving whatsoever, drawing lines. He had put his signature and made declaration in the application which is earlier reproduced. The First Respondent also filled up Annexure III and made a declaration therein as reproduced earlier. Learned counsel for the appellant commission relied on the judgment of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav1 and contended that when information with regard to the antecedents of a candidate is called for, it is to verify and cross-check intended information so that the suitability of the candidate for employment could be judged. If the candidate indulges in suppresso veri and suggestio falsi, he proves himself unfit to be employed, all the more so, if he is to be employed in public employment. If the information as to the full particulars of employment was available with the commission, the commission could have checked antecedents of the First Respondent with his employer and ascertained the suitability of the First Respondent for employment. In any event, it had been made clear to the candidates, both in the advertisement calling for applications as well as in the body of the application itself that furnishing of false information or its suppression candidature. The First Respondent, therefore, did not deserve any consideration and the High Court erred in interfering with the order of the Tribunal.” in cancellation of to result liable The learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in A.Sagar vs. State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad [5] . In the said case, the petitioner therein has not furnished information about his involvement in a criminal case, in the application form. This Court held that the petitioner perhaps having realized the indiscretion committed by him in refusing to divulge the requisite information in the application form, voluntarily stated about his involvement and arrest by the police in connection with the criminal cases registered against him before the authority who came to verify his antecedents, and that the petitioner by inadvertence did not divulge the requisite information and it does not amount to willful suppression or concealment of facts. In the present case, though the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case before the submission of the application itself, the Tribunal, considering the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (1 supra) and Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission’s case (4 supra) held that any suppression of information or false statement disqualifies the applicant for selection and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Sri V.Raghunath, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in SECY.DEPTT.OF HOME SECY.A.P. VS.CHINNAM NAIDU [6] and contended that when a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives information he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service and that there can be no dispute to this position in law. But on the facts of the case it cannot be said that the petitioner had made false declaration or had suppressed material information. He further contended that since the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case, there is no need to indicate about the same in the application. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I sought to sustain the impugned order contending that when once the column is provided in the application form that whether he was involved in any criminal case, the petitioner has to indicate and furnish the crime number. Though the subsequent conviction or acquittal is immaterial, at the entry level, he has not furnished the correct information. In the circumstances, and following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’s case (1 supra) and also the view taken by us in W.P.No.21061 of 2008, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the respondents concerned to consider his case, upon which, they shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date: 23.12.2008 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (2003) 3 SCC 437 2003 (1) ALD 380 (2005) 2 SCC 746 AIR 2005 SC 4292 2003(1) ALD 380(DB) 2005 AIR (SCW) 1058