Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 757 (TS)

S. Raju v. State Of Telangana

2020-11-10

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

body2020
JUDGMENT Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J. - This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- "..... to issue a writ or an order or a direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Impugned Memorandum dated 24.08.2020 bearing Rc.No.220/Rectt./Genl.2/2019 issued by the 2nd respondent as being arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently: (i) Set aside the Impugned Memorandum dated 24.08.2020 bearing Rc.No.220/Rectt./Genl.2/2019 issued by the 2nd respondent: (ii) Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature towards the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee, Police Constable (SCTPC), Telangana State Special Police (TSSP) pursuant to the Recruitment Notification - 2018 by permitting the petitioner to attend the next batch of induction training, (iii) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case". 3. Heard Sri Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. It has been contended by the petitioner that he is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed for the post of Police Constable. While so, the respondents have issued a recruitment Notification on 31.05.2018 and pursuant to the said Notification, he has responded to the same and after undergoing regular selection process, he was selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee - Police Constable (SCT PC), Telangana State Special Police (TSSP) on 24.09.2019. In the process of selection, he has to fill up one attestation form in the month of October, 2019 informing as to whether any criminal case is pending against him. Accordingly, he has filled the said attestation form making it clear that criminal cases filed against him were ended in acquittal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that earlier the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in S.C.No.378 of 2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Gadwal, and S.C.No.70 of 2017 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal, and the competent criminal courts were pleased to acquit the petitioner on 27.04.2016 and 02.06.2017 respectively, and, therefore, no criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. Be that as it may, the respondents have issued a Show-cause Notice on 19.02.2020 asking the petitioner as to why the provisional selection of the petitioner could not be cancelled on the ground of involvement in criminal cases. Pursuant to the said Show-cause Notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 10.03.2020 making it very making it very clear that the criminal cases which were pending against him ended in acquittal on 27.04.2016 and 02.06.2017, respectively, and requested the respondents not to take any action against him pursuant to the Show-cause Notice dated 19.02.2020. But, the respondents, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner have cancelled the provisional selection of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 24.08.2020. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner has admittedly disclosed about the criminal cases in which he was acquitted. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to re- consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee - Police Constable (SCT PC), Telangana State Special Police (TSSP). 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had elaborately considered an identical issue wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 38' gave certain elaborate directions as to how the authorities have to deal with respect to involvement in criminal cases and whether there is a charge of moral turpitude or not? In view of the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case, let the case of the petitioner also be considered in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (1 supra). He further contended that in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No.18798 of 2017 dt.15-11-2017 (arising from SLP (C) No.20525 of 2011 dt.21-07-2016)) at para 4' of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the very same issue in Avtar Singh's case (1 supra). Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above said cases and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner afresh in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above said cases and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended that the information sought for from every selected candidate in the attestation form asking whether any criminal case is pending against them at any point of time, does not mean that it amounts to pendency of any criminal case only at the time of filling up of attestation form and the petitioner was not asked to give the status of pendency of criminal case as on the date of filling up of attestation form. Therefore, in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case, the respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the respondents have cancelled the provisional selection of the petitioner without following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (1 supra) and Avtar Singh's case (2 supra). Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above two referred cases and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. The respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (1 supra) and Avtar Singh's case (2 supra) in view of acquittal of the petitioner by the competent criminal courts and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.