Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 209 (AP)

Government of A. P. v. Bolupadra Krishna Rao

2012-02-24

K.G.SHANKAR, V.ESWARAIAH

body2012
Judgment :- (Per Sri Justice V Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed by the State of A.P., questioning the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in allowing the O.A. No.11566 of 2009 dated 27.1.2010, as illegal and to set aside the same. 1. The writ petitioners are respondents before the tribunal. The first respondent/ applicant filed O.A. No. 11566 of 2009 questioning the endorsement in Rc.No. 250/A1/2008 dated 20.10.2009 of the fifth petitioner herein/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakapatnam Range, Visakapatnam where under his provisional selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector (for short SCT SI) was cancelled as per the orders issued in Fax Message Rc No. 413/R&T/Genl.1/09 dated 9.10.2009 of the second petitioner/ The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad (for short the Board) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to appoint him as SCT SI (Civil) (Men) in Zone-I. 2. The case of the first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as applicant) is that earlier in response to the notification issued in the year 2006 by the second petitioner, he applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police and was successful in both the written test and medical test, however, in view of pendency of a criminal case in C.C. No. 279 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta, Srikakulam district, he did not pursue the selection proceedings. Thereafter, the second petitioner has issued another notification in Rc No. 165/R&T/Genl.1/2008 dated 6.6.2008 inviting applications for various posts in police department including 1135 posts of SCT-SI. The applicant applied for the post of SCT-SI and was successful both in physical test and written test and was waiting for appointment order. While so, vide endorsement dated 20.10.2009 of the fifth petitioner, he was informed that his provisional selection to the post of SCT SI was cancelled as per the Fax Message dated 9.10.2009 of the second petitioner. The applicant applied for the post of SCT-SI and was successful both in physical test and written test and was waiting for appointment order. While so, vide endorsement dated 20.10.2009 of the fifth petitioner, he was informed that his provisional selection to the post of SCT SI was cancelled as per the Fax Message dated 9.10.2009 of the second petitioner. The fax message dated 9.10.2009 speaks about the involvement of the applicant in Crime NO.40 of 2007 registered under Section 420 of IPC of Mandasa Police station with regard to cheating and collecting an amount of Rs.50,000/-by promising to secure a job in Indian Army; that the acquittal of the fifth respondent in CC No. 279 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta under Section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code by order dated 22.9.2008 is on technical grounds and due to lack of evidence; therefore it is not desirable that a person of such a nature is recruited in a department like the police. The relevant portion of fax message 9.10.2009 reads as under; “Scrutiny of the C.D. file in respect of Cr. No. 40/2007 under Section 420 IPC of Mandasa P.S. Srikakulam district shows that this is a case of alleged cheating reported on 17.5.2007 by the complainant Kanagana Saradhi of Sinkala pulluga village, mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam district, wherein the candidate collected Rs.50,000/-from the complainant promising him a job in Indian Army and then absconded. The case diary dated 29.6.2007 reveals that the candate had collected money from many others, but subsequently during the investigation, they did not come forward to give their statements against the candidate. The case was acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C on 22.9.2008 in the Court of JFCM, Sompeta vide C C No. 279/2007. The case ended in acquittal on technical grounds and due to lack of evidence as the witnesses being the interested witnesses and also on the ground that the complainant was not eligible for selection in the Army. It is therefore not desirable that a person of this nature is recruited in a department like the police. The case ended in acquittal on technical grounds and due to lack of evidence as the witnesses being the interested witnesses and also on the ground that the complainant was not eligible for selection in the Army. It is therefore not desirable that a person of this nature is recruited in a department like the police. As such, the candidate is disqualified for appointment as per rules in view of Rule 12 (1) (a) (ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996; Rule 3 (F) of A.P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 issued in G.O. Ms.No. 315 Home (Pol.C) Dept dated 13.10.1999 read with G.O. Ms No. 97 Home (Legal.II) Dept, dated 1.5.2006 and para 21 of this office notification Rc No. 165/R&T/Genl.1/2008 dated 6.6.2008. The provisional selection to the post of SCT Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) (men) in Zone-I in respect of Baoupadra Krishna Rao, Reg NO. 510971 is therefore cancelled.” Based on the above fax message, the fifth petitioner issued the impugned endorsement dated 20.10.09 stating that during the process of recruitment, his character and antecedents were got verified including his involvement in a Criminal case in Cr No. 40/2007 u/s 420 IPC and the Board on thorough examination found that the applicant of such nature is not desirable for recruitment in a department like police and in terms of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and A.P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999, G.O.Ms No.315 dated 13.10.1999 read with G.O.Ms No. 97 dated 1.5.2006 and para 21 of the notification dated 6.6.2008 he is disqualified for appointment and informed that his provisional selection to the post of SCT SI was cancelled as per the above orders dated 9.10.2009. 3. The applicant questioned the endorsement dated 20.10.2009 in the said O.A on the ground that the referred criminal case in CC No. 297 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class magistrate, Sompeta ended in acquittal by judgment dated 22.9.2008 and he has disclosed the said fact in the application submitted pursuant to the notification and that the impugned endorsement was issued without conducting any enquiry and without affording reasonable opportunity to him to defend his case, as such the same is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and fair play and prayed to set aside the same and to direct the selection Board to issue appointment order to him. The fifth petitioner herein being fifth respondent before the Tribunal, filed a counter affidavit admitting the fact that during the selection in the year 2006, though the applicant was selected in all the events including the written test, owning to pendency of criminal case in CC No. 279/2007 he might not have been selected. It is further stated that in the selection process pursuant to notification dated 6.6.2008 the applicant was selected in all the events including written test and that a case in Cr.No.40/2007 under section 420 IPC was registered against the petitioner for extortion of Rs.50,000/-by promising to provide job in Army and that the applicant obtained anticipatory bail to avoid police arrest; that the said case ended in acquittal under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C vide judgment dated 22.9.2008 and the said facts were informed to the second petitioner Board vide letter dated 2.10.2009 and second petitioner Board issued order vide Fax Message dated 9.10.2009 disqualifying the appointment of the applicant invoking Rule 12 (1) (a) (ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 Rule 3 (F) of A.P. Police (STC) Rules, 1999 and para 21 of the notification dated 6.6.2008 where under “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”. That based on the Fax Message dated 9.10.2010 endorsement dated 20.10.2009 was issued to the applicant intimating cancellation of his provisional selection. That the character and conduct of a candidate is prime factor to consider his/her candidature for selection to the post under A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, particularly in the disciplined organisation like police department. That though the case against the applicant ended in acquittal, such an acquittal is only on technical grounds and due to lack of evidence as the witnesses did not come forward to give their evidence against the applicant being interested witnesses, as such it was found that it is not desirable that a person of such a nature is recruited in a department like Police and he was disqualified for appointment as per rules. The Tribunal on consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides, following its earlier judgment in O.A No. 7646 of 2009 dated 19.1.2010 and the judgment of this Court in A.SAGAR Vs. The Tribunal on consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides, following its earlier judgment in O.A No. 7646 of 2009 dated 19.1.2010 and the judgment of this Court in A.SAGAR Vs. STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, HYDERABAD2002 ALT (6) 468 allowed the Original Application holding that the applicant has declared in his application as well as attestation form about his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal in the case. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as under; “…… The applicant in this case stands on the same footing as the petitioner in the judgment cited supra. In the present case also the applicant has declared in his application as well as in the attestation form about his involvement in the Criminal Case and his subsequent acquittal in the said case. Further, he was permitted to take physical fitness test as well as written test and he was also selected. However, the fifth respondent on the basis of Radio Message issued by the second respondent cancelled the provisional selection of the applicant on the ground that he was involved in the criminal case. Thus, it is clear that except the fact that the applicant was involved in the criminal case, no fresh material has come to the notice of the respondents regarding the antecedents and character of the applicant. Moreover, the applicant himself had disclosed about all these things at the time of applying for the post. In these circumstances and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court reported in 2002-ALT-6-468 in the case of A.SAGAR Vs STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, HYDERABAD, the action of the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the applicant, merely on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case, is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement in Rc. No. 250/A1/20078 dated 20.10.2009 issued by the fifth respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to issue a fresh appointment order to the applicant as SCT Sub Inspector (Civil) (Men) in Zone I and send him for training in the ensuing batch. With these directions, the O A is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed and this Court while admitting the writ petition by order dated 28.4.2010 granted interim suspension. With these directions, the O A is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed and this Court while admitting the writ petition by order dated 28.4.2010 granted interim suspension. The applicant filed a counter affidavit to vacate the orders dated 24.8.2010 vide petition in W.V.M.P. No. 4443 of 2011 justifying the order of the Tribunal and to dismiss the writ petition. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services –I for writ petitioners and Mr A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for applicant and they have advanced their final arguments at the interlocutory stage itself. The learned Government Pleader for Services –I submits that as per Rule 3 (G) (vi) of A.P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 “a person who is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude’ is disqualified for appointment” and in terms of Rule 12 (1) (a) (ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, “No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfied the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service” and the same condition was stipulated at para 21 of the notification dated 6.6.2008 and the applicant having involved in a criminal is not desirable to hold the subject post. Unless the incumbent satisfies the selection authority and or appointing authority as to his character and antecedents he is not entitled to be appointed. He further reiterates that in view of the conditions stipulated in the notification i.e., at para 21 the applicant is disqualified in view of his involvement in a criminal case. In support of his contentions he relied on the judgments in DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY Vs SUSHIL KUMAR1996 (1) SCC 605, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND OTHERS Vs. RAM RATAN YADAV 2003 (2) SCC 437, and DAYA SHANKAR YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA 2010 (14) SCC 103 . In Delhi Administration case, while dealing with a case where the candidate was provisionally selected and on verification of the antecedents it was found that it is not desirable to appoint him as a constable, denial of appointment on the ground of undesirability was held not improper. UNION OF INDIA 2010 (14) SCC 103 . In Delhi Administration case, while dealing with a case where the candidate was provisionally selected and on verification of the antecedents it was found that it is not desirable to appoint him as a constable, denial of appointment on the ground of undesirability was held not improper. The relevant portion of the same reads as under; “………On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Aggrieved by proceedings dated 18.12.1990 culminating in cancellation of his provisional selection, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and /or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State/ Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question.. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.” Mr. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.” Mr. A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for applicant would submit that earlier when the notification was issued in the year 2006, he has applied for the post of Sub Inspector and his application was considered and he has participated in the preliminary selection test, physical measurement test, physical efficiency test and written examination which was conducted on 13.12.2006 and succeeded in both physical test and written test but could not be selected in view of the pendency of criminal case against him in CC 279 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta. With regard to the contention of the writ petitioners that the applicant is acquitted on technical grounds it is stated that the said contention is incorrect and baseless inasmuch as after conducting regular trial the applicant was acquitted on merits and honourably by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta in CC No. 279 of 2007 vide judgment dated 22.9.2008. He further submits that again pursuant to notification dated 6.6.2008, he has applied for the post of SCT-SI furnishing the details as regards the criminal case in CC No. 279 of 2007 and he was permitted and participated in the selection proceeds and succeeded both in physical tests and written test and was awaiting for appointment and at that stage, without conducting any enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity to defend himself the fifth respondent unilaterally issued the impugned proceedings informing cancellation of his provisional selection, which is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. He further submits that the cases relied upon by the learned Government Pleader in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan case andDaya Shankar case (cited 3 & 4 supra) have no relevancy to the present facts and they relate to suppression of material information relating to character and antecedents. He further states that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar case (cited 2 supra) was distinguished by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI Vs. DHAVAL SINGH 1999 (1) SCC 246 . He further states that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar case (cited 2 supra) was distinguished by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI Vs. DHAVAL SINGH 1999 (1) SCC 246 . The relevant para reads as under: “Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to a judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court on 4.10.1996 in Delhi Admn Vs. Sushil Kumar. On the first blush, that judgment seems to support the case of the appellants but there is a material difference between the two cases. Whereas in the instant case, the respondent has conveyed to the appellant that an inadvertent mistake had been committed in not giving the information against the relevant column in the Form much before the cancellation of his candidature, in Sushil Kumar case, no such correction was made at any stage by the respondent. That judgment is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on facts.” Mr. A.V.Sesha Sai, further submits that taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the Original Application and the said order needs no interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 21644 of 2010 wherein by order dated 8.2.2011 the writ petition filed by the State against the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A No. 289 of 2010 was dismissed, upholding similar order of the Tribunal. 5.Admittedly, pursuant to the notification dated 6.6.2008, the applicant has submitted his application on 25.2.2009 without suppressing or concealing any facts inasmuch as in column no.16 (Annexure I), he has furnished the details of Criminal Case in C.C. No. 279 of 2007 viz., the case number, year, name of the police station and district. It is his case that he has furnished all the details and after scrutiny of his application only, he was subjected to preliminary tests and he having succeeded therein was provisionally selected. He states that there are no other cases pending against him except the one where he was acquitted on merits by the competent Court after conducting regular trial. Therefore, the action of the writ petitioners in disqualifying him and cancelling his selection is illegal and arbitrary. He states that there are no other cases pending against him except the one where he was acquitted on merits by the competent Court after conducting regular trial. Therefore, the action of the writ petitioners in disqualifying him and cancelling his selection is illegal and arbitrary. In the case of Sushil Kumar (cited 2 supra), on verification of the antecedents of the respondent viz., Sushil Kumar, it was found that he was charged and /or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, as such his appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable and accordingly his candidature was rejected, against which he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the said Original Application on the ground that the applicant was discharged/ acquitted and therefore he cannot be denied right of his appointment. The question that was considered in the said case by the Supreme Court was whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct or not. The verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Merely because he was found fit and passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected but on account of antecedent record the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The said action of the department was upheld by the Supreme Court. We are of the opinion that the case in Sushil Kumar (cited 2 supra) does not relate to correct furnishing of the antecedents about the acquittal of the case. It is not known whether there was any suppression about the pendency of the criminal case which was said to have ended in acquittal later or whether there was any information furnished in the application form about the acquittal of the said case. But, however, the Supreme Court in the later judgment in Commissioner of Police, Delhi (cited 5 supra) distinguished the earlier judgment in Sushil Kumar case (cited 2 supra) on the ground that in Sushil Kumar case mistake committed by the applicant while furnishing the information was not at all corrected, that means in Sushil Kumar case, there was a suppression of fact about pendency of the criminal case. But in the case on hand, admittedly there is no suppression or concealment of material information about the criminal case which ended in acquittal and the applicant has furnished the relevant information in the application form itself. 6. The Supreme Court recently in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR 2011 (4) SCC 644 , while dealing with a case of one Sandeep Kumar, who while submitting his application form on 24.2.1999 for the post of Head Constable did not mention about his involvement in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC and upon qualifying in all the tests for selection, on 3.4.2001 filed an attestation form for the first time wherein he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with his tenant which later on had been compromised in 1998 and he had been acquitted, held that young people often commit indiscretions and approach should be to condone such indiscretions rather than branding them as criminals for rest of their lives and lenient view should be taken. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: 8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 9. In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. 10…. 11…. 12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. 10…. 11…. 12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, decoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.” A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (i.e., KGS,J) is a party, in W.P. No. 21644 of 2010 considered similar question as raised in the present writ petition and dismissed the said writ petition by its order dated 8.2.2011. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “6. The learned Government Pleader for Services – I contends that the Tribunal erred in allowing the O.A., though there are three Criminal Cases pending against the 1st respondent and that the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that there was only one criminal case filed against the 1st respondent i.e. Crime No.87 of 2001 and the other Crimes, as alleged by the petitioners, relate to other persons and hence, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that there are on grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. A perusal of the record discloses that the 1st respondent involved in a criminal case and that the same was ended in acquittal. The 1st respondent also stated about the same in the Attestation Form. The Tribunal after a detailed discussion, observed as follows: “In the circumstances, when the applicant was not found guilty and not convicted and sentenced by any of the competent court, it can not be said that his character and conduct are bad to reject his case for selection as Station Fire Officer. Further it is not the case of the respondents that except above two cases there is any other incident which came to their adverse notice. More over, this information of his involvement was furnished by the applicant himself and the respondents came to know about this through the information furnished by the application in the Attestation Form.” 8. Further it is not the case of the respondents that except above two cases there is any other incident which came to their adverse notice. More over, this information of his involvement was furnished by the applicant himself and the respondents came to know about this through the information furnished by the application in the Attestation Form.” 8. From the above, it is evident that the criminal case filed against the 1st respondent was ended in acquittal and the said information has been furnished by the 1st respondent in the Attestation Form. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent has suppressed the information regarding his involvement in criminal case. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. For the foregoing, the writ petition is failed and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” Under Rule 3 (G) (vi) of A.P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 “a person who is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude” is disqualified for appointment and in terms of Rule 12 (1) (a) (ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, “No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfied the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service”, which formed part of notification dated 6.6.2008 at condition no.21. 7. From the perusal of the judgment in Criminal Case No. 279 of 2007 dated 22.9.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta, it is seen that the applicant was charged for the offence under section 420 of IPC and in support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 4 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 dated 29.6.2007 i.e., statement of P.W. 1 recorded by SDPO, Kasibugga and Ex.P.2 dated 29.6.2007 FIR in Cr.No. 40/2007 of Mandasa Police Station. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 was disbelieved and their version and conduct with regard to the alleged payment of Rs.50,000/-to the accused/applicant was held to be against the normal conduct of a prudent man. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 was disbelieved and their version and conduct with regard to the alleged payment of Rs.50,000/-to the accused/applicant was held to be against the normal conduct of a prudent man. It was further held that P.W.1 did not attend for selection at any time for Army Recruitment, therefore the question of paying Rs.50,000/-by P.W.1 to P.W.3 for selection of P.W.1 does not arise. The case of the accused/applicant in the criminal case in his cross examination was that at the instance of one Dokkara Srirama Murthy, the said criminal case was filed against him on the ground that he forcibly took away his testimonials in his absence in the house and the same was denied by P.W.2. The said Dokkara Srirama Murthy is brother in law of P.W.2. P.W.2 is junior paternal uncle of P.W.1 and he stated that he does not know said Dokkara Srirama Murthy and that he does not know that a crime was registered against Dokkara Srirama Murthy on the report of the accused at Nandigam police station in FIR in Cr No. 33/2007. In view of rivalry between the accused and Dokkara Srirama Murthy, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class held that it cannot be ruled out that this case is foisted by P.W.1 and that the scanty evidence on record shows that there is no inducement made by the accused nor an amount of Rs.50,000/-was received from P.W.1 to P.W.3. As such it was held that the prosecution has failed to make out the case against the accused for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and the prosecution has failed to prove the guild of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is to be noted that the question as to whether the applicant was involved in an offence involving moral turpitude depends upon the nature of the offence and the evidence available on record in the criminal cased. It is the case of the applicant that a false case has been foisted against him as a counter to the criminal case filed by him against one Dokkara Sriram Murthy, who is related to P.Ws 1 to 3 and has stated to have been taken away his testimonials in his absence. It is the case of the applicant that a false case has been foisted against him as a counter to the criminal case filed by him against one Dokkara Sriram Murthy, who is related to P.Ws 1 to 3 and has stated to have been taken away his testimonials in his absence. The criminal case registered against the applicant ended in acquittal disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses who are not hostile witnesses but they are interested witnesses to see that applicant is convicted. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta on appreciation of the evidence, disbelieved the version of the prosecution witnesses and believed the version of the accused that as a counter to the criminal case filed by him against one Dokkara Sriram Murthy, a false case has been foisted against him. It was further held that P.W.1 did not attend for selection at any time for Army Recruitment, therefore the question of paying Rs.50,000/-by P.W.1 to P.W.3 for selection of P.W.1 does not arise; in view of rivalry between the accused and Dokkara Srirama Murthy, it cannot be ruled out that this case is foisted by P.W.1; that the scanty evidence on record shows that there is no inducement made by the accused nor an amount of Rs.50,000/-was received from P.W.1 to P.W.3; that the prosecution has failed to make out the case against the accused for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. Thus, it is clear that the acquittal of the applicant was not on technical grounds but it was on merits. Further, admittedly, the applicant has not suppressed or concealed about his involvement in the criminal case and in fact in the earlier notification for the year 2006, he was provisionally selected and in view of the pendency of criminal case he did not pursue further selection process and subsequently the criminal case ended in acquittal and thereafter when a notification was issued on 6.6.2008, he has applied for the post of SCT-SI furnishing the material information as required in the application indicating his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal. It cannot be said that the person is involved in an offence involving the moral turpitude even if he has been honourably acquitted in a case on merits.Therefore, we are of the opinion that upon acquittal on merits, it cannot be said that the applicant is disqualified for appointment in terms of Rule 12 (1) (a) (ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules or under Rule 3 (G) (vi) of A.P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 or under para 21 of the notification. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi Case (cited 5 supra), Commissioner of Police case (cited 6 supra) and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P. 21644 of 2010 dated 8.2.2011, we are of the opinion that in view of the clean acquittal of the applicant, it cannot be said that he is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. It is also not the case of the writ petitioners that criminal case involving moral turpitude against the applicant is pending and there is no material except the averments made in the criminal case, wherein, the applicant was honourably acquitted. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter has rightly allowed the Original Application by its order dated 27.1.2009 and did not commit any error requiring to review the same. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.