JUDGMENT :- (Per GMJ) In this Writ Petition, the State Officials seeks to assail the order dated 21.01.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, allowing the O.A.No.10513 of 2009, which was filed by the first respondent herein seeking to set aside the proceedings dated 07.08.2009, whereby the first respondent was removed from service; and consequently to quash the above order of the Tribunal. The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent, while furnishing the attestation Form-I on 09.11.1994 regarding his selection as Police Constable, willfully suppressed the information regarding his involvement in the criminal proceedings. Thereafter, he was selected as Police Constable in 1995 and was promoted as Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore, the first respondent was served with charge memo dated 06.12.2004. Though the inquiry officer, after regular inquiry, found him not guilty, disagreeing with the same, the disciplinary authority sent a dissenting note to the first respondent calling for his representation. The disciplinary authority, considering records, findings of the inquiry officer and the representation, found the first respondent guilty of the charge and awarded punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 07.08.2009. It is stated that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against him since as soon as the information has come to the notice of the competent authority, action was initiated, that the suppression of involvement in criminal case was willful and that the punishment was not excessive. Therefore, the petitioners seek to quash the order dated 20.01.2010 passed in O.A.No.10513 of 2009. 3. The case of the first respondent is that he was appointed as a Police Constable in Karimnagar District in 1995 and while undergoing training, he was selected as Sub-Inspector of Police on 17.08.1995 and has been discharging duties as such. While so, he was subjected to departmental disciplinary inquiry in pursuance of the charge memo dated 06.12.2004 on the alleged misconduct of suppression of the fact of his involvement in Crime No.175 of 1994 on the file of the Godavarikhani I Police Station for the offence punishable punishable under Section 24 read with 34 I.P.C. The crime was registered based on a complaint given by one Anjaneyulu against the school management of Abhinava Vidyalaya, where the first respondent used to work as a Private Teacher, including the first respondent, regarding a compound wall of the complainant abutting the school. Charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.34 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, and by judgment dated 20.07.2000, the first respondent was acquitted. Therefore, the inquiry officer, after conducting inquiry as per Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (‘1991 Rules’ for short), found the first respondent not guilty, by a reasoned order. The disciplinary authority – D.I.G. of Police, Warangal, disagreeing with the inquiry report issued a dissent note and communicated the same to the first respondent. Assailing the same, he filed O.A.No.9506 of 2009, during pendency of which he was served with proceedings dated 07.08.2009 issued by the disciplinary authority finding him guilty of misconduct and removing him from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A.No.10513 of 2009 and the Tribunal rightly set aside the proceedings dated 07.08.2009. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Services – I appearing for the petitioners submits that the act of the first respondent suppressing the requisite information regarding his involvement in criminal proceedings, at the time of filling the attestation form, was erroneous; that the punishment of removal from service as imposed is not excessive and that the Tribunal erred in setting aside proceedings dated 07.08.2009. In support of this contention, he has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in R. Radhakrishnan vs. Director General of Police ( (2008) 1 SCC 660 ), wherein it was held as under: “10. Indisputably, Appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed. 3. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed. 3. Pursuant to or in furtherance of an advertisement dated 29.12.1999 having been issued in that behalf, the appellant filed an application for appointment to the post of Fireman on 05.01.2000. He was provisionally selected whereafter he submitted a verification roll, the relevant part whereof reads as under: I realize that if I am enlisted and my statement which has been made by me is found to be false, I shall render myself liable to be dismissed for obtaining service under false pretences. 15. Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as accused? No 16. Have you ever been arrested or convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal or other offence? If so, No give details with C.C. No. And Court. 18. Are there any civil or criminal cases pending against you? If so, details. No 4. It now stands admitted that he, however, was involved in an incident which occurred on 15.04.2000, and was proceeded against under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested but was released on bail. He, however, was acquitted of the said charge on 25.09.2000. Inter alia on the premise that he had made false statement in his verification roll, in regard to the pendency of the aforementioned case, he was not selected. 5. He filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by reason of a judgment and order dated 4.03.2002 opined that as he ad been acquitted in the criminal case, there did not exist any reason as to why he should be denied an appointment to the post of Fireman. A writ petition preferred there against by the respondent herein was allowed by reason of the impugned judgment. 13. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.” 5. A writ petition preferred there against by the respondent herein was allowed by reason of the impugned judgment. 13. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.” 5. Learned Government Pleader further drawn our attention to an unreported judgment of this Court, to which I (GMJ) was member, in Director General & Inspector General of Police vs. Patchala Srinivasa Rao (W.P.No.5813 of 2005 dated 10.07.2009), wherein this Court held that the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Bipad Bhankan Gayen (2008 AIR SCW 4058) 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. 6. Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent, vehemently submits that the judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error since the first respondent has unblemished service record and since the inquiry proceedings were initiated after nine years and the punishment was imposed after fourteen years from the date of the first respondent joining in the service. In support of his contention, he relied on judgment of this Court in A. Sagar vs. State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyd ( 2003(1) ALD 380 (DB)), wherein it was held as under: “20. It is true that the column No.16 of the application form requires the applicant to furnish information about his involvement in any criminal case and arrest by the police. The applicant is required to furnish full details, such as FIR number and name of the police station. So far as column No.17 of the application form is concerned the applicant is required to furnish the information as to whether he has been prosecuted or convicted by a court of law in the past or facing trial in any case at the relevant time. The applicant is required to furnish full details such as name of the court and conviction particulars etc. The applicant is required to furnish full details such as name of the court and conviction particulars etc. So far as the petitioner is concerned as against column Nos.16 and 17 nothing is stated by him. Both the columns are left blank. The petitioner signed the application form on 8-9-2001. It is required to notice that by that time the petitioner has been acquitted of all the criminal cases registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the acquittal is on merits. It is true that nothing prevented the petitioner herein to furnish the details of the cases in which he was involved and which subsequently ended in acquittal. The petitioner by inadvertence did not divulge the requisite information and the same, in our considered opinion in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, may not amount to willful suppression or concealment of facts. The fact remains that the cases registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal 1-1/2 years prior to the notification issued by the respondents. The petitioner is admittedly not involved in any criminal case whatsoever after disposal of those criminal cases referred to hereinabove registered against him. 21. Yet another important aspect of the matter that is required to be noticed is that the petitioner perhaps having realised 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. The authority accordingly submitted a complete and comprehensive report about the petitioners involvement in the criminal cases and his acquittal by the court of competent criminal jurisdiction and the same was available with all the respondents herein. It is only thereafter the respondents have deputed the petitioner herein to undergo training with the third respondent. It means, the respondents were fully aware of the registration of some criminal cases against the petitioner and their ending in acquittal. The respondents perhaps having impressed by the fact that the criminal cases registered against the petitioner were ended in acquittal on merits thought it fit to depute the petitioner to undergo the training since he possesses all the requisite qualifications and satisfies eligibility criteria for being selected and appointed as Police Constable. The respondents perhaps having impressed by the fact that the criminal cases registered against the petitioner were ended in acquittal on merits thought it fit to depute the petitioner to undergo the training since he possesses all the requisite qualifications and satisfies eligibility criteria for being selected and appointed as Police Constable. In our considered opinion, the same now cannot be put against the petitioner for deleting his name even from the select list. 22. So far as the attestation form is concerned, the petitioner as against column No.12 stated no. We may notice column No.12, which is as follows: "Have you ever been arrested by the Police, convicted by Court or detained of any offence." 23. 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.” 7. Learned counsel for the first respondent further contended that since, according to the 1991 Rules, there is no misconduct on the part of the first respondent, the Tribunal committed no error warranting interference by this Court. He relied on observations of the inquiry officer’s report dated 27.03.2008, which reads as under: “The charged officer also describing the above episode has stated that while filling the Attestation Form he has not understood the Column. No.12 of the form and he copied the reply from his friends form. The E-1 Sr.Asst.Range Office, Warangal has stated during the cross examination that there is such scope while filling the Attestation Form by the SI recruit candidate. He also stated that some candidates may not have full knowledge of understanding all the columns of the attestation form and they may copy from their friend candidates. The charged officer contended that the same thing has happened while filling up his attestation form. He copied the reply of Column No.12 from the form of his friend candidate. He says that it is not his intentional act. Some how minute study of the case, it is observed that the explanation of the charge officer is convincing to lend support to rebut the allegation of concealing the information of involvement in a criminal case wantonly. He copied the reply of Column No.12 from the form of his friend candidate. He says that it is not his intentional act. Some how minute study of the case, it is observed that the explanation of the charge officer is convincing to lend support to rebut the allegation of concealing the information of involvement in a criminal case wantonly. From the evidence of P.Ws., it is crystal clear that the petitioner Gangadhara Anjaneyulu is a petition-monger, litigant fellow, is in the habit of filing false complaints against innocent people of his locality, implicating them in criminal cases with the help of local police and later on calling them for compromise and knocking huge amounts on the name of compromise form innocent people. As per enquiry reports submitted by the then SDPOs it was ironically proved that the said Gangadhara Anjaneyulu cheated a lady by name Radhamma, a widow, demanded and collected huge amounts from her. Further, he is proved to be desperate character and in the habit of enjoyment the ladies by impersonation. In furtherance of his questionable character, he developed illegal intimacy with the aforesaid women Radhamma and cheated her by imposing himself as AINTUC leader.” 8. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through various judgments of Apex Court and this Court, observed as under: “It is also contended that removal from service is bad and disproportionate, that too, after the applicant worked for 9 years by the time of charge sheet without any remark and imposing a penalty of removal after 14 years is disproportionate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hazarilal, AIR 2008 SC 1300 considered the case of proportionality of the punishment and has held that the penalty imposed shall be proportionate to the misconduct. In that case, the delinquent official was found guilty for offence under Section 324 IPC by the Criminal Court and by dispensing with the enquiry, the order of dismissal was passed. Their Lordships held that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct and fine was the proper one. In that case, the delinquent official was found guilty for offence under Section 324 IPC by the Criminal Court and by dispensing with the enquiry, the order of dismissal was passed. Their Lordships held that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct and fine was the proper one. Therefore, removing a Sub Inspector of Police after rendering 14 years of unblemished service on an allegation mistake committed by him in the attestation form by not disclosing about his involvement in the criminal case and arrest, which themselves are doubtful (as his name does not find place in the CD or FIR) is surely disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. On that ground itself, the penalty of removal is liable to be interfered. A censure would have been an appropriate penalty, if for any reason he is found guilty of alleged misconduct.” 9. In the explanation of the first respondent dated 28.11.2008 submitted to the disciplinary authority, he stated that by that time he has completed thirteen years service and that on recognition of his good work turned out in the anti-extremist field, the authorities awarded him 38 GSEs, 42 Cash Rewards and 12 commendations/appreciations. 10. From a perusal of the above facts and circumstances of the case, cited case law and material on record, we are of the view that since the first respondent was acquitted in the criminal proceedings and he has appreciable long-standing service with awards and rewards, the Tribunal rightly appreciated the issue and allowed the O.A.No.10513 of 2009 by setting aside the proceedings dated 07.08.2009, whereby the first respondent was removed from service. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are given three weeks time from today for compliance with the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.10513 of 2009 dated 20.01.2010. No costs.