The High Court · 2025

HON'BLI] SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEAL NO,1397 OF 2024 TUDGMEN T: rper Hon'ble Si lustice Larmr Narayana Alishe tty) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated

03.06.2024 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in I W.P.No.202B of 2027

2. Hearrl Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Stancling Counsel for the appellant and Srl Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for respondent No.1

3. l-he facts of the case in nutshell are that in response to the Recruitn-rent Notification-20l8 issued by the appellant, respondent No.1 has applied for the post of Stipencliary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (for short, 'SCT PC') (Civil) and was provisionally selected for the post of SCT PC (Civil) subject to verification of the antecedents, original certificates and medical fitness; that during the antecedents verificatiory it carne to light that he was irrvolved in a criminal case in Crime No.774/2076 \ t 2 AKS,J & LNI,J ru Na.t397 o.f2024 under Sections 3548, 34L and 506 of IpC of L.B.Nagar police Station, Rachakonda, r,r,hich was also mentioned in the attestation form during recruitment process; however, respondent no.1 failed to mention the cletails of the case in Crime No.819 of 201,6 under Section s 341, 323 and 506 of IpC of Meerpet Police Station; that respondent no.1 was served r.t ith show-cause notice on 27.02.2020 calling for his explanation as to why his provisional selection should not be cancelled in view of his invoivement in a criminal case i.e., Crime No.774 of 2016; that appellant submltted his explanation that he has not been acquitted of the offences in Crime No.774 of 2016 of L.B.Nagar Police Station

3.1. 'Ihat a revised show-cause notice dated 22.09.2020 was issued to the respondent no.1 stating that he was involved in another Crime No.819 of 2016 of Meerpet Police station, wherein he was convicted to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and since the saicl fact was not mentioned in the attestation form and same was suppressed by him and why his provisional section - o ,) AKS,J & LNA,J Y;/A No.l397 of2021 should not be cancelled. The respondent no.1 submitted his reply statinll that criminai case in Crime No.819 of 201.6 was already disposed as on that date and therefore, he has not mentioned the same in the attestation form, which n as neither wilful nor intentional, but due to lack of knowledge and requested not to take any penal step against his selection

3.2. It is contended that the explanation submitted by the respondent no.1 was examined by the appellant and not satisfied rvith the said explanation, the provisional selection of the responderrt No.1 was cancelled ttide proceedings dated

22.10.2020. Challenging the cancellation order dated

22."10.2020, r'espondent No.1 approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20024 of 2020 and the learned single Judge of this Cotrt tride lrrder dated 71.77.2020 allowed the writ petition setting asider the order dated 22.10.2020 with a direction to the appellant to consider the case of the respondent No.1 in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar t' 4 IKS,J & LNA,J 14A No.l j97 o.f 2D4 Singh v. Union of India and othersl in view of the acquittal of the writ petitioner by the competent Criminal Court and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of order in accordance with law.

3.3. The respondent no.1 herein submitted representation dated 19.11.2020 to the appellant to consider his case by relying on the clecision of this Court in W.p.No.20024 of 2020 dated 71.11.2020. The appellant considered the case of the respondent No.1 and once again rejected the request of the respondent no.1 to appoint him as SCT PC alde Memo dated

17.72.2020 by observing that a candidate wishing to join police Force must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity and the criminal court acquitted the respondent no.1 by giving benefit of doubt as the material witness turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and it is not a clean acquittal. '1zor6;rscc+ur r-t n 5 AKS,J & LN,1,J tlA No.1i97 of 2024

3.4. Aggrier''ed by the Memo dated 17.72.2020 passed by the appellant, the respondent No.1 once again approached this Court by fllirrg W.P.No.2028 of 202L and the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the said writ petition aide otder dated 03.06 2024by relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh (1 supra), Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another2 and State of Odisha and others v. Gobinda Behera3 and directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of SCT PC (Civi1) and sent him for training along with the next batch of candidates. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.06.2024, the appellant filed the present appeal.

4. Learnecl Standing Counsel for the appellant had contended that respondent no.1 was involved in cases of moral turpitude and as per Rule 3 (G) (vi) of the SCT Rules, a person who is inrzoh,ed in an offence involving moral turpitude is a disqualification for appointment and in view of 1aw- laid down '1reoo; + scc r ' Civileppeal No.8q3 o12020, dated I LO 1.2020 6 AKS,,] & LNl-,] wA Na 1397 a.f 2U1 ...' o by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Mehar Singha and Union of India and others v. Methu Medas, the case of the respondent no.1 cannot be considered in view of his involvement in moral turpitude. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that acquittal in Crime No.774 is not a clean acquittal and in Crime No.819 of 2016, respondent no.1 was convicted and fine amount of Rs.2,000/- was imposed by the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, oide ord,ers dated 07.07.2017 and as per Rule e (G)(v) of the SCT Rules, a person who has been convicted for any offence in any Court of law is a disqualified for appointment.

5. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that in Avtar Singh's case (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the empioye r shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicabte to the empioyee, at the time of taking the decision. He further contended that as per Rule 3(F) of SCT Rules oitle lzor:j? scc oss o ' lzozz; t scc t .) n 7 AKS,J & LNA,J h'+ Na 1397 of2024 G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal) Department dated 01.05.2006, no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruihnent unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for service. Therefore, it is clear that a person involved in a case of moral turpitude shall be disqualified lor appointment and as such, going by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh (1 supra), respondent No.1 is not entitled for any relief . Therefore, respondent No.1 is not a fit Person to be appointed in a disciplined force and finally, prayed to alloit' the writ appeal by setting aside the impugr-red order clatcd 03.06.2024 passed bv the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2028 of 202L.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 had contended that learned Single Judge on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and by relying upon the decisions ol the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avatar Singh's case (1 supra), Pawan Kumar (2 supra) and Gobinda Behera I I 8 AKS,J & LNA,J trA No.1397 of2024 - h (3 supra), had rightly allowed the Writ petition No.202g of 2021 since the criminal case in Crime No.774 of 20.16, has ended in clean acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove the case against him and case in Crime No.819 of 2016 was closed on payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-. Learned counsel further contended that in Pawan Kumar (2 supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court held that 'provision need be made that punishment of fine upto a certain limit, say upto Rs.2,000/- or so/ on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for any purpose and ail the more for enhy into and retention in government'. He further contended that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Cour! imposing of fine of Rs.2,000/- is not bar for appointing the respondent No.1.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 further contended that despite specific orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.20024 of 2020 to consider the case of the respondent no.1 in terms of the guidelines laid down in Avatar Singh's I 9 AKS,J & I,NA,J ttA No 1397 of2024 case, the clisciplinary authority cancelled the provisional selection in clear contravention of the ratio laid dolt'n and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Cou ri in Avatar Singh's case. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the order passed by the learned singie Judge and final\' prayed to dismiss the writ appeal. Consideration: B. Perusal of the record would show that respondent no.1 is involved rn Crime No.774 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 3548, 347,506 of IPC, in which he was acquitted by the II Metrop-rolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar uide C.C.No.1238 of 2017. In Crime No.774 of 2017, the complainant-J.Anjamma, who is aged about 64 yeals and who is none other than the step mother of the responclent No.1, was examined as l'.W.1 and deposed in her evidence that one day, while she v,,as proceedings towards DVM college to go to her treme, meanu.hile one unknown person came on a motor cycle It: I I i t l0 AKS,J & LNA J WA No.l397 oJ2024 -j (-' and restrained her and forced her to come along with him and when she rescued, he pulled her saree and outraged her modesty, and she did not identify that person who came on a motor cycle with helmet. No eye witness was examined by the prosecution. Considering the evidence available on record, the criminal Court acquitted the respondent no.1. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the acquittal in criminal case is clean acquittal

9. Insofar as in crime No.819 of 2016, the allegations are that there has been altercation between the respondent no.1 and his brother L.Shankar and both of them have lodged complaints against each other; that r,rrhile the complaint against the respondent no.1 was registered as Crime No.B19 of 2016 and the complaint against his brother was registered as Crime No.820 of 2016 and the crime against the respondent no.1 was closed on payment of fine of Rs.2,000/ aide docket order of the il Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad 1t AKS,J & I,NI,J lY4 No 1397 of 2024 L.B.Nagar, in CC No.123O of 2076, dated 07.07.2017, which is prior to the date of issuance the recruitment notification-2018.

10. From the above material, it is evident that case and counter-casc have been registered by the respondent no.1 and his brother against each other and the same were closed on payment of firre of Rs.2,000/- and that there is no involvement of third parties as it appears to be there was an altercation between within the family members.

11. Non', it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Flon'ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar (2 supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph-14 held that 'prooision need be ruade that yunishnrcnt of fine upto a certain limit, say upto Rs.2,000/- or so, on a summary/ordinary conttiction shall not be treated as cortuiction at all for any purpose and all the mere for entry t into and retention in gooernment seraice' . 1,2. In vieu, of the above discussion and legal position, this Court is of :he considered view that mere fine of Rs.2,000/- on a summary,/ordinary conviction in criminal case, shall not be I I I I l I I t r l; ! I )2 AKS,J & LNA,J ttA No.l397 o12024 i. l1' treated as conviction at all for any purpose and all the more for entry into and retention in Government service and therefore, learned single Judge was justified in allowing the W.p.No.202B of 2021filed by the respondent no.1 and the appellant failed to make out any case warranting this Court to interfere with the impugned order. The writ appeal fails and the same is iiabie to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 03.06.2024 passcd by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2028 of 2021,. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if arry, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/-I. NAGALAKSHMI D PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER U To,

1. OneCCto SRl. MVRAIvIA RAO(SC FORTSLPRB) IOPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. RAMESH CHILLA Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies KKS GJP $^ HIGH COURT DATED:31 14112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1397 of 2024 t e,J o 1 HE SIA I€ 21 IriAB 2025 O5- .t (( 7 C, DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS