Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 369 (AP)

State Of Andhra Pradesh v. Gorli Rama Ravi Kumar

2024-03-18

G.NARENDAR, NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay, J. The present intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 23.01.2023 in allowing W.P.No.17101 of 2020 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and issue final proceedings pursuant to the provisional selection list dated 12.09.2019 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The Parties are described as per their nomenclature in the Writ Petition. 2. The brief facts leading to the writ appeal are asunder: The respondent No.2 had issued a notification dated 12.11.2018 for recruitment to the post of SCT PCs (Civil) (Men and Women), SCT PCs (AR) (Men and Women), SCT PCs (APSP) (Men) and Warder (Men and Women) and Firemen in A.P. Fire and Emergency Services Department. 3. The petitioner pursuant thereto had applied for the post of Police Constable and after going through all the tests, the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of SCT PC (APSP) (Men) for the 11th BN APSP, Bakarpet, Kadapa District and his rank in BC “B” category in the unit serial No.66 with a rank of 423. 4. While the petitioner was anticipating issuance of appointment order, it was informed to him by the respondent-Department while doing a background check of the antecedents of the petitioner that he was involved in Cr.No.307 of 2019 under section 279 IPC., on 06.09.2019 and the said case was disposed of on 10.10.2019 vide STC No.2916 of 2019 on imposition of fine of Rs.2,500/-. In view of that case, the respondents were not issuing appointment orders and hence, the writ petition was filed. 5. The respondents filed their counter stating that the provisional selection of the petitioner was cancelled on 16.03.2020 in view of his involvement in the criminal case. The disposal of the criminal case was considered as a conviction by the Department as the petitioner was imposed a fine of Rs.2,500/- and in view of Rule 3(G)(vi) of G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 01.05.2006, which is to the effect that a person, if convicted in any offence would be disentitled for appointment. 6. The learned single Judge referring to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the age of the petitioner and the nature of crime allowed the writ petition vide order dated 23.01.2023. Hence, the writ appeal. 7. 6. The learned single Judge referring to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the age of the petitioner and the nature of crime allowed the writ petition vide order dated 23.01.2023. Hence, the writ appeal. 7. Heard Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar G.P. for Services-I for appellants and Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 8. The case registered against the petitioner was under section 279 I.P.C, for hitting a Wagon R car and causing a dent to the left part of the car. The charge sheet filed on 02.10.2019 also reiterates the same. The offence against the petitioner is trivial in nature and payment of fine by the petitioner cannot be construed as a “conviction” as understood in general legal parlance. The payment of fine in cases of this nature is more to buy peace and pursue a career rather than going around the Courts to prove their innocence. This is apparent by the fact that the Charge sheet in this case was filed on 02.10.2019 and fine was paid on 10.10.2019 i.e in a span of less than ten days. 9. The Rule 3 (G)(v) of G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 01.05.2006 relied upon by the respondent-Department to cancel the provisional selection has to be read along with clause (vi) thereof which disqualifies a person for involving in an offence of moral turpitude. If clause 3(G)(v) and (vi) are read together, it is apparent that only those individuals who are either involved in offence of moral turpitude or convicted in an offence of moral turpitude alone are disqualified to be selected. The case against the petitioner cannot be construed as one involving moral turpitude and therefore, the cancellation of the provisional selection of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others2024 Livelaw SC 155 had considered similar case of non-disclosure of involvement in a criminal case and after examining the gamut of case law on this aspect, opined that notwithstanding the non-disclosure of involvement in a criminal case, the respondents should act in a reasonable manner having due regard to the facts of the case. In the above referred case, the individual was involved in a criminal case under sections 324, 352 and 504 I.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed appointment of the individual therein for the post of Constable. In the above referred case, the individual was involved in a criminal case under sections 324, 352 and 504 I.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed appointment of the individual therein for the post of Constable. The observation at para 30 is extracted below for ready reference: “...Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.” 11. A similar view was also taken in Pavan Kumar v. Union of India and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 532. This case was referred to in Ravindra Kumar’s case (supra) and the reasoning at 13 is extracted below for ready reference. “13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment at para 19 also directed appointment of the individual therein for the post of Constable. 13. The petitioner in this case is a young citizen belonging to a backward class community and to deny him appointment for a trivial case filed on account of his boyish enthusiasm would be to vilify and deny him employment for the rest of his life. Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner and the triviality of the criminal case, the cancellation of provisional selection of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 14. Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner and the triviality of the criminal case, the cancellation of provisional selection of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 14. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge, the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and hence, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.