JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. V. S. Kishore kumar, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to and pertaining to the O. A. No. 1328 of 2005, dated 18.04.2013 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to undergo training as police constable in APSP-II Battalion, Kurnool and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Pursuant to a notification issued in the year 2003 for selection of Police Constable the petitioner applied and was selected. He was allotted A. P. Special Police-II Battalian, Kurnool for training, but was denied the same on the ground that the petitioner was found involved in a Criminal Case vide Crime No.25/2004 in Kodumuru Police Station for offences under Section 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. His provisional selection, along with some others was cancelled on the ground for suppressing the fact of involvement in a criminal case, vide proceedings C.No.A1/1005/2004, dated 29.11.2004. The petitioner was finally acquitted in the criminal case in the year 2009. On the date of the application pursuant to the notification, the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case in the year 2003. In the attestation form, before going to training, in Column No.12 in response to the query with respect to any involvement in any criminal case, arrest by Police, detention or conviction, the petitioner suppressed the fact of involvement in the criminal case and mentioned ‘No’. 4. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1328 of 2005, challenging the proceedings of cancellation and the same was dismissed, initially for default on 29.01.2008, but later on was restored and finally the O.A was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.04.2013. 5. The Tribunal, initially granted interim order dated 24.03.2005 directing the respondents to allow him to undergo training as Police Constable in A.P. Special Police-II Battalian, Kurnool, but not to give the appointment order until further orders. 5. The Tribunal, initially granted interim order dated 24.03.2005 directing the respondents to allow him to undergo training as Police Constable in A.P. Special Police-II Battalian, Kurnool, but not to give the appointment order until further orders. Finally the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. The Tribunal did not accept, the explanation submitted in mentioning ‘No’ in the attestation form, Column No.12. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and subsequently he filed bail application and was released on bail and he also faced the trial before the concerned court. Thus he cannot claim that he was not Yesopu (A.25) as mentioned in the F.I.R or in the charge sheet. His plea, for suppression of fact in attestation form, was found falsified by his conduct. The Tribunal further observed that the selection in which the petitioner was selected was of the year 2003. So after so many years, the respondents cannot be directed to provide employment in pursuance of the notification of 2003 as the lapse of time would also affect the fitness for selection. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the O.A. The reason assigned by the petitioner for not mentioning about the Criminal Case cannot be said to be suppression of fact as in the F.I.R/charge sheet, name Yesopu was mentioned and not the petitioner’s name as J. Giddaiah. He further submitted that after acquittal the petitioner’s case should have been considered by the departmental authorities keeping in view various factors including the antecedents of the petitioner and a decision ought to have been taken which has not been done. The Tribunal instead of dismissing the O.A ought to have directed for consideration of the petitioner’s case in the facts and circumstances as also the antecedents of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of the State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. Vadde Pavan Kumar, W.P.No.33306 of 2012 & batch, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court decided on 26.04.2023, to contend that in that case also under the similar fact situation where the criminal case was not disclosed resulting into cancellation of the selection on the post of Police Constable, the Tribunal had allowed the claim of the applicant/candidate therein and the writ petition filed by the State Government was dismissed. It was held that as the respondents therein were otherwise found to be eligible for selection and for recruitment, the cancellation of their selection and discharge from service on the sole ground of non-disclosure of involvement in the criminal cases in which they were acquitted was legally not sustainable. 8. Sri G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment of the Tribunal. The petitioner suppressed his involvement in the criminal case. The reason as assigned by the petitioner was not found justified by the Tribunal and whatever be the reason, in view of the admitted fact of F.I.R, charge sheet, trial, arrest, bail, all being in the knowledge of the petitioner, even if name Yesopu was mentioned, the petitioner was bound to furnish the correct information, but he suppressed those facts. Suppression of such fact by itself was sufficient to cancel his provisional selection and that too in a disciplined force like the present one for the post of Police Constable. He further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for consideration of his case even after acquittal as inspite thereof the fact would remain that there was suppression in the attestation form. He placed reliance in the cases of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and State of Rajasthan and others vs. Chetan Jeff, 2022 SCC Online SC 597. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. There is no dispute on facts that the petitioner did not disclose and suppressed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case. There is no dispute that in the attestation form it was not disclosed and the petitioner filled ‘No’ in Column No.12. The only thing the petitioner has submitted with respect to filing ‘No’, is that the name in the F.I.R was not correctly mentioned as the petitioner’s name. On this aspect we are not satisfied with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner had the knowledge of the F.I.R/Charge sheet. He was arrested and was granted bail and consequently filling ‘No’ in Column No.12 of the attestation form is suppression of fact. We are in conformity with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect. 11. The petitioner had the knowledge of the F.I.R/Charge sheet. He was arrested and was granted bail and consequently filling ‘No’ in Column No.12 of the attestation form is suppression of fact. We are in conformity with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect. 11. The only issue that requires consideration is as to whether after acquittal the petitioner’s case should have been considered by the authorities. In other words, whether the Tribunal ought to have directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s case, on consideration of his antecedents as well. 12. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter required consideration. In the submission of the learned Government Pleader, it did not require consideration. There is no dispute on the legal aspect that any direction for appointment could not be given even after acquittal 13. We may refer, directly to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra). It is apt to reproduce Para 38 as under:- “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus: 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/ verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” 14. In Avtar Singh (supra) in Para 38.1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal, arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. As per Para 38.4, in case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to the knowledge of employer, the recourses open to the employer to be adopted are as per Paras 38.4.1, 38.4.2 and 38.4.3. As per Para 38.4.1, in a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse, and as per Para 38.4.2, where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. Para 38.4.3 provides that if acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employer. 15. 15. We are of the considered view that the petitioner’s case cannot be covered under Para 38.4 and its sub-paragraphs. The present is not a case of trivial nature nor for a petty offence. The petitioner was charged under Section 307 of I.P.C which offence is of serious nature. His acquittal is also on technical ground granting benefit of doubt and is not a clean acquittal. 16. In Chetan Jeff (supra), the candidature of the writ petitioner therein was rejected on the ground that he suppressed the material fact about his criminal antecedent in Column No.15, and made an incorrect statement in the job application form. Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed to consider his case for the post of Constable mainly on the ground that the offences were trivial in nature and the suppression of such offences should have been ignored. The Writ Appeal by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The matter was taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court by the State of Rajasthan. The Hon’ble Apex Court on consideration of various judgments including Avtar Singh (supra), while allowing the appeal quashed the orders of the Writ Court and in the Writ Appeal, observing that both erred in directing the state to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as a Constable. The Apex Court observed that it cannot be said that the authorities committed any error in rejecting the candidature. 17. In Chetan Jeff (supra), Hon’ble the Apex Court observed and held that the duty of a Constable is to maintain law and order. Therefore, it is expected that he should be honest, trustworthy and that his integrity is above board and that he is reliable. An employee in an uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. 18. It is apt to reproduce Paras 24 to 26 of Chetan Jeff (supra) as under:- “24. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the post on which the writ petitioner is seeking the appointment is the post of constable. It cannot be disputed that the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order. 18. It is apt to reproduce Paras 24 to 26 of Chetan Jeff (supra) as under:- “24. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the post on which the writ petitioner is seeking the appointment is the post of constable. It cannot be disputed that the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order. Therefore, it is expected that he should be honest, trustworthy and that his integrity is above board and that he is reliable. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. In the present case the original writ petitioner has not confirmed to the above expectations/requirements. He suppressed the material facts of his criminal antecedents. He did not disclose in the application form that against him a criminal case/FIR is pending. On the contrary, in the application form, he made a false statement that he is not facing any criminal case. Therefore, due to the aforesaid suppression, his candidature came to be rejected by the appropriate authority. Despite the above, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitioner and directed the State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for appointment as a constable mainly on the ground that the offences were trivial in nature and the suppression of such offences should have been ignored. The same has been confirmed by the Division Bench. 25. The question is not whether the offences were trivial in nature or not. The question is one of suppression of material fact by the original writ petitioner in respect of his criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the application form. If in the beginning itself, he has suppressed the material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents and in fact made an incorrect statement, how can he be appointed as a constable. How can he be trusted thereafter in future? How it is expected that thereafter he will perform his duty honestly and with integrity? 26. Therefore, as such the authorities were justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of constable.” 19. We may also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 7 SCC 536 . 26. Therefore, as such the authorities were justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of constable.” 19. We may also refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 7 SCC 536 . In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to and considered various decisions of the Apex Court pre and post the decision in Avtar Singh (supra). It is apt of reproduce paras 92 and 93 with its sub-paras as under:- “92. The only reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by this Court as above over a period of time is that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in Avtar Singh (supra) different courts have enunciated different principles. 93. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows: 93.1. Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials -– more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)] 93.2. Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. 93.3. The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. 93.4. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. 93.4. The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders’ conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. 93.5. The Court should inquire whether the authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide. 93.6. Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority? 93.7. Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable?” 20. In Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) also the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the suppression of material information and making of false statement in the verification form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. 21. In our view, the petitioner’s case is suppressing the material fact with respect to pendency of a criminal case at a time when he filled the attestation form. Consequently, the cancellation of candidature for giving false information vide the order dated 29.11.2004 impugned before the Tribunal is justified. The cancellation is on the ground of suppression of material fact. The petitioner’s subsequent acquittal would not wipe out the fact that though he was bound to disclose truly and not to suppress the required information, which he did not do, would still stand. Consequently, based on the petitioner’s acquittal the authorities cannot be directed to consider his case for selection/appointment, also considering that he was charged of a serious offence of attempt to murder and his subsequent acquittal was not a Hon’ble acquittal. 22. The judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. Vadde Pavan Kumar, upon which learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. That was a case where the suppression of the involvement in criminal case was for a case trivial in nature during the young age, as it is evident from Para 24 of the judgment. There the Tribunal had also taken a lenient view and set aside the order of cancellation of the selection and discharge of one of the candidates, with which the co-ordinate bench did not interfere. The present is not such a case of trivial nature. There the Tribunal had also taken a lenient view and set aside the order of cancellation of the selection and discharge of one of the candidates, with which the co-ordinate bench did not interfere. The present is not such a case of trivial nature. 23. The writ petition is devoid of merit. The judgment of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 24. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.