Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Dodla Penchalaiah vs Sandeep Kumar1; Avtar Singh on 6 May, 2026
Date of reserved for judgment: 09.03.2026
Date of pronounced : 06.05.2026
Date of uploading : 06.05.2026
APHC010554992025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3565]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1364/2025
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the Order
of Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. (AT) No. 22 of 2021 by allowing the
present Writ Appeal.
Between:
1. DODLA PENCHALAIAH, S/O. PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, R/O. KAMAKSHI COLONY, BUCCHIREDDYPALEM, SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH,
AMARAVATI - 522 502
2. THE STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, ANDHRA
PRADESH., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. - 522 502
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT,
NELLORE-524001.
4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI.- 522 237
...RESPONDENT(S):
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
2
Condone the delay of 69 days in filing the e accompanying Writ Appeal
against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in W.P.(A.T.) No.22 of 2021,
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay the operation and effect of the Order, dated 30.04.2025 passed in
W.P.(A.T.) No.22 of 2021, by directing the respondents authorities to reserve
one post of Police Constable (Civil) - 2008 (II) for the petitioner, pending
disposal of this Writ Appeal
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT APPEAL No.1364 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 30.04.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(AT) No.22 of 2021.
2. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the
Writ Petition for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard Mr.V. Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the
respondents and carefully perused the material available on record.
4. Case of the petitioner:
(i) The petitioner is belonging to a Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) community. He
applied for recruitment to the post of Police Constable pursuant to the
notification-2008 (2) of State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra
Pradesh. He appeared for the preliminary test (preliminary selection test of 5
km run) conducted in the month of March 2009 and he was qualified.
Thereafter, he appeared and qualified in Physical Measurement Test
conducted on 16.07.2009. Written examination was conducted on 13.09.2009.
He also participated in Physical Efficiency Test (PET) performance (men) in
various categorized tests and he was qualified.
4
(ii) In the village of the petitioner, there were political groups which
were frequently making complaints against each other. The petitioner has no
role either in the politics or in the village affairs. He is searching for
employment. He was informed through his family members that on 03.01.2010
at about 15-00 hours, an altercation was took place between the revenue
officials i.e., Mandal Surveyor, Buchireddypalem; the Village Revenue Officer,
Bit-II; one Seenaiah and others. On 03.01.2010, basing on the complaint, a
case in Crime No.4 of 2010 was registered for the offence under Section 323
r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Seenaiah and others. Except the
petitioner, all his friends were implicated in the said crime, who are
agriculturists. Again on the same day, another crime i.e., Crime No. 6 of 2010
was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 427
r/w 149 Indian Penal Code against Seenaiah and others including the
petitioner herein, who implicated as Accused No.13. The defacto complainant
in Crime No.6 of 2010 is inimically disposed towards the petitioner’s family
and knowing the fact that the petitioner was selected in the police constable
recruitment, he was implicated in the second case as afterthought. Though
there is no offence attributable against the petitioner, a charge sheet was filed
in C.C.No.107 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Kovur. The petitioner was informed that he would not be considered for
training due to pendency of the charge sheet.
(iii) The petitioner is advised that pending criminal case, he cannot
prohibit undergoing for training and accordingly, the petitioner approached the
5
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1381 of 2013. During
pendency of the said O.A., the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.107 of 2010
on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, by its
judgment, dated 19.03.2014. At that stage, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous
Application in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 seeking direction to send him for training
due to closure of the criminal case against him. The Tribunal by order, dated
15.09.2014 directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s
request for training keeping in view of the acquittal in criminal case. Pursuant
to the said order, the petitioner’s case was examined and 2nd respondent
issued speaking order vide Memo in Rc.No.114/R&T/Admin.2/ 2013, dated
22.12.2014 rejecting the request of the petitioner to send him for training.
Subsequently, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was dismissed for default by order, dated
24.06.2016 by the Administrative Tribunal. Seeking to set aside the dismissed
for default order, the petitioner filed M.A.No.1675 of 2016 and it was dismissed
on 24.10.2017. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order, dated 24.06.2016 has
dismissed the O.A. No.1381 of 2013.
(iv) Against the order, dated 24.06.2016 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21470 of 2019. A Division
Bench of this Court by its order, dated 03.01.2020 set aside the order, dated
24.10.2017 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in M.A.No.1675 of
2016 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013 and restored the O.A. to its file subject to
payment of costs. Thereafter, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was restored to its file.
After abolition of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the O.A.No.1381
6
of 2013 was transferred to this High Court and it was renumbered as W.P.(AT)
No.22 of 2021. After hearing, the learned single Judge of this Court was
pleased to dismiss the same by order, dated 13.04.2025. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner filed this Writ Appeal.
5. The case of the respondents:-
(i) Pursuant to the notification issued by the Chairman, State Level
Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh in Rc.No.670/R&T/Genl.2/2008,
dated 30.12.2008 (2) for filling up the posts of SCT PCs and equivalent ranks.
The petitioner applied for the post of SCT PC (Civil, AR and APSP) etc. He
participated in the selection process and provisionally selected to the post of
SCT PC (Civil) (Men) in Nellore District. During antecedents verification, it
came to light that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.6
of 2010 registered on 03.01.2010 for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
452, 323, 324, 427 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code of Butchireddypalem Police
Station as Accused No.13. The case was charge sheeted on 16.02.2010.
Subsequently, the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur in its
judgment, dated 19.03.2014 acquitted the petitioner under Section 248(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(ii) It is mentioned at paras 21 and 22 of the notification stating that 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.
7
Suppression of material facts or withholding any factual information either in
the application or in the attestation form (which would be supplied to the
candidates who will be provisionally selected) will disqualify the candidate
from being considered for appointment. In the event of any information being
found false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected at any time even after
appointment, he/she will be discharged from service forthwith by the
appointing authority without giving any notice.
(iii) Further as per Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the A.P. State & Subordinate
Service Rules, 1996, 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.
(iv) Para 3(F) of G.O.Ms.No.97 of Home (Legal.II) Department, dated
01.05.2006, it is stated that 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.
(v) The petitioner has submitted the attestation form on 23.12.2010. A
case was registered against the petitioner on 03.01.2010 and charge sheeted
on 16.02.2010 and he got acquitted on 19.03.2014. It clearly indicates that the
petitioner’s case was pending trial when he submitted the attestation form. He
was deliberately suppressed the fact of his involvement in criminal case by not
8
mentioning the details of criminal case in column No.16 of the attestation form.
He also signed the declaration stating that he was fully aware that furnishing
of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation
form would be a disqualification and likely to render him unfit for employment
under the Government. In view of the same, his case was not considered for
appointment as Police Constable and order of cancellation of selection was
issued on 29.04.2011. By order, dated 15.09.2014 in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 in
O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the
respondent authority to consider the request of the petitioner to send him for
training keeping in view of his acquittal in criminal case. The request of the
petitioner has been considered once again keeping in view of his acquittal in
the said criminal case and it was rejected vide Memo, dated 22.12.2014. The
rejection order is in accordance with the relevant rules and as per the
decisions of the Apex Court.
6. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
(i) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere
suppression of certain information of trivial nature does not disentitle the
petitioner for being considered for appointment to the post of police constable.
Taking into fact that the case was ended in acquittal, a lenient view should
have been taken. The learned counsel would submit that the request of the
petitioner to send for training pursuant to the order, dated 24.06.2016 of the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, rejected by order, dated 22.12.2014
9
without considering it objectively and reasonably. The learned counsel submits
that the petitioner became a scapegoat in the village politics at the behest of
the trivial. The petitioner hails from a poor family and with his hard work, he
provisionally selected as Police Constable. The learned counsel further
submits that only due to fear of loss of job in the event of disclosing the case,
the petitioner did not mention the same in the attestation form. The learned
counsel contends that except registration of this case, prior to that or after
that, there is no any criminal antecedents against the petitioner and no
complaints are there. Taking into consideration of the same, the learned single
judge ought to have allowed the writ petition in the light of the decisions of the
Apex Court in identical matters.
7. Submissions of the learned Government Pleader appearing for
respondents:
The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents contends
that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the truth and as such the
competent authority has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner basing on
the observations of the Apex Court. He further contends that the acquittal is
not a honourary acquittal after full pledged trial and after considering the
whole evidence holding him in such offence is committed or proved but the
acquittal is based on hostility of the prosecution witnesses. The learned
Government Pleader submits that the case against the petitioner and counter
case arisen on the same day as case and counter case due to attack by one
10party against the other and therefore mere acquittal based on the hostile
evidence cannot be treated as a clean acquittal. He further contends that the
case against the petitioner is not a trivial offence, but it is a grave offence.
Therefore, it is not a fit case to appoint the petitioner as a Police Constable
which job involves maintenance of law and order. He further contends that
when the State has a choice to appoint a person of good character, State
should not choose person whose character is dubious and objectionable.
Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader would submit that Rule 12 of
the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 vests wide
amplitude powers to deny employment based on antecedents in addition to
Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Rules, 1999. Accordingly, he would submit that
there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge and
interference of the same is not required.
8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and upon
careful examination of the material available on record, the following admitted
facts are emerged for consideration:
(a) The petitioner submitted application for the post of Police Constable
pursuant to the notification, dated 13.12.2008.
(b) The petitioner participated in the selection process and provisionally
selected to the post of Police Constable in Nellore District.
11
(c) A case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2010, dated 03.10.2010 of
Butchireddypalem Police Station and the petitioner was implicated as Accused
No.13 and the said case was charge sheeted on 16.02.2010.
(d) The petitioner has submitted the attestation form on 23.12.2010.
(e) The petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case vide judgment,
dated 13.03.2014 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur.
(f) The provisional selection of the petitioner as Police Constable was
cancelled by order, dated 29.04.2011.
(g) The petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1381 of 2013.
(h) On 15.09.2014 in M.A.No.2235 of 2014 in O.A.No.1381 of 2013, the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to
consider the request of the petitioner for sending for training in view of his
acquittal in criminal case. Pursuant to the said order, the request of the
petitioner has been considered and it was rejected vide Memo, dated
22.12.2014.
(i) Thereafter, O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was dismissed for default by order,
dated 24.06.2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and it was
restored to its file pursuant to the order, dated 03.10.2020 in W.P.No.21470 of
2019 of a Division Bench by this Court. Subsequently, due to abolition of the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the said O.A.No.1381 of 2013 was
12
transferred to this High Court and it was renumbered as W.P.(AT) No.22 of
2021.
(j) The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said W.P. (AT)
No.22 of 2021 by order, dated 13.04.2025.
9. In this factual position, the issues that arise for consideration before this
Court are:
(1) Whether the State was justified in cancelling the provisional selection
of the appellant/petitioner as Police Constable vide order, dated
29.04.2011 and the Memo No.114/R&T/Admn.2/2013, dated 22.12.2014?
(2) To what relief, is the appellant/petitioner entitled to?
10. In fact, the law on this issue is settled by the Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar1; Avtar Singh
Vs. Union of India and others2 and in the latest judgment of the Apex Court
in Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others3.
11. In Sandeep Kumar‘s case (1 supra), the Apex Court made thoughtful
observations in the light of the classic judgment in Morris v. Crown Office4
while considering the story of the character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo’s
novel Les Miserables, where the character was branded as a thief for stealing
1
(2011) 4 SCC 644
2
(2016) 8 SCC 471
3
2024 INSC 131
4
(1970) 2 QB 114
13
a loaf of bread for his hungry family. The relevant observations extracted as
herein under:
“10… …
In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord
Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which
are often condoned.
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, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view
should be taken in the matter.”
12. In Avtar Singh‘s case (2 supra), in view of the observations in the
case of Sandeep Kumar (1 supra), the Apex Court made the following
observations:
“24… … This Court has observed that suppression related to a case
when the age of Sandeep Kumar was about 20 years. He was young and
at such age people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions
may often be condoned. The modern approach should be to reform a
person instead of branding him a criminal all his life. In [Morris v. Crown
Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 : (1970) 2 WLR 792 (CA)] , the observations
made were that young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no
violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were trying to preserve the
Welsh language. Though they have done wrong but we must show
mercy on them and they were permitted to go back to their studies, to
their parents and continue the good course.”
13. The relevant para Nos.34, 35, 36 and 38 in Avtar Singh‘s case (2 supra)
are extracted herein under:
“34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is
one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to
employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action
14should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all
relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is
suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The
employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in
exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the
services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the
material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or
continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and
exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having
due regard to facts of cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of
post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not
only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature
of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by
authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and
power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
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 recourses 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. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in
nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the
employee.
15
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. 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. in Avtar Singh‘s case (2 supra), the Apex Court has been clearly laid
down that though a person who has suppressed the material information
cannot claim unfettered right for appointment, he or she has a right not to be
16
dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of power has to be with objectivity and in a
reasonable manner taking into consideration the facts of the case.
15. In Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others 5, the Apex Court
while granting relief in an identical facts, held as extracted herein under:
“9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 28-4-1958 on
the subject “Verification of the character and antecedents of government
servants before their first appointment” and it is stated in the government
order that the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following
instructions in supersession of all the previous orders:
“The rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the
State Government shall continue to be as follows:
The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to
render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post
to which he is to be appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing
authority to satisfy itself on this point.
xxxxxx
12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before
the court, PW 1, Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the court that
on 2-12-2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling and at that time the
appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had
reached there and someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the
scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick
platform and that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any
sharp weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the appellant,
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the
charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it was not at all
possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was
not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable.
13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
had been sent along with the report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar
Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it
appears from the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether
the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of
constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the
selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not5
(2011) 14 SCC 709
17furnish in his affidavit in the pro forma of verification roll that a criminal
case has been registered against him.
14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated
28-4-1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as
to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a
constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the
criminal case. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable
for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority
has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because
the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the
time of recruitment.
xxxxxx
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of
the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench
and allow the writ petition of the appellant and quash the order dated 8-8-
2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant
will be taken back in service within a period of two months from today but
he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained
out of service. There shall be no order as to costs.”
16. In Pavan Kumar vs. Union of India and another6, the Apex Court held
as extracted herein under:
“11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to
participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct
information relating to his character and antecedents in the
verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is
also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material
information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right
of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right
not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised
by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity
having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without
saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to
adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of
post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be
considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no
hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.
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, the6
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 532
18employee/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.
19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of
the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th November, 2015 and the
order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated 23rd December, 2021
are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to
reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable, on which he
was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment
notice no. 1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011. We make it clear that the
appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during
which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be
entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other
consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a
period of one month from today. No costs.”
17. In Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others7, the Apex
Court made the following observation, as extracted herein under:
“5. Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our country.
Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited
number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for
grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious
questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly,
judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of
suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a
judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical
incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service
simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual
deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead
in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all
considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not
always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation
of a case.”
7
(2019) 17 SCC 696
19
18. The latest judgment in Ravindra Kumar‘s case (3 supra), the Apex Court
held at paras 28 and 30 as extracted herein under:
“28. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case;
the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; the nature of the
query in the application/verification form; the contents of the character
verification reports; the socio economic strata of the individual applying;
the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of consideration and
the contents of the cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial
aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and
in determining the nature of relief to be ordered.”
30. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special
circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non-disclosure of the
unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the
scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do
not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. 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.”
19. In the light of the principles of law settled by the Apex Court as extracted
herein above, this Court has noted the following certain special features in the
present case:
(i) The petitioner hailed from the rural village of Nellore District and
belonged to downtrodden Section.
(ii) As on the date of the submitting the application for Police Constable
selection and as on the date of the provisional selection, no criminal case is
pending against him.
20
(iii) A criminal case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2010 and the
petitioner was shown as Accused No.13 on 03.01.2010.
(iv) In the small village of the petitioner, all are aware that the petitioner
was selected in the Police Constable recruitment and it can be assumed that
he was implicated in the said case as afterthought to damage his job
prospects.
(v) It is also an admitted fact that counter-cases are registered at that
time.
(vi) Admittedly, in the attestation form on 23.12.2010, the petitioner did
not mention about the pendency of the criminal case. This may be done due to
fear that he may lose the prospect of his employment.
(vii) The petitioner was acquitted by the learned Additional Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Kovur by its judgment, dated 19.03.2014 holding that there
is no incriminating evidence to fasten guilty on accused and the prosecution
has failed to drive home the guilt of accused for the offences charged against
the petitioner by adducing convincing evidence.
(viii) It is very important to note that there is no criminal record against
the petitioner prior to registering the case in Crime No.6 of 2010 or subsequent
to that and the said fact was not considered by the competent authority while
cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner as Police Constable,.
21
(ix) The appointing authority without considering whether the petitioner
was suitable for appointment or not, in a casual manner cancelled the
petitioner’s provisional selection as Police Constable as per Service Rules and
some executive orders.
(x) The appointing authority without considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and under what circumstances, the petitioner was
implicated in a criminal case, has cancelled the provisional selection of the
petitioner as Police Constable arbitrarily and without exercising the power in a
reasonable manner with objectivity.
20. Analysis and finding:
1) In catena of Judgments, in addition to the Judgments stated supra, the
Supreme Court has adopted a realistic and pragmatic approach moving
away from the mechanical “automatic disqualification” stance. This
sensitive shift towards a more discretionary approach, considering each
such case as unique intertwined with various complex socio cultural
issues and background scenarios impacting the particular individual
cases distinctly.
2) Here is a breakdown of the key principles established in the cases cited
herewith:
Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024): The Court ruled that
an error in disclosure shouldn’t be treated as a “fatal flaw” if the
underlying incident was trivial or resulted in an acquittal. It emphasised
that authorities must act fairly rather than mechanically cancelling a
candidacy.
3) Whereas Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016): is the landmark
“foundation” case.
22
It established that even if a candidate suppresses some piece of
information, the employer cannot terminate them arbitrarily. The
employer must consider the nature of the offence, the age of the
candidate at the time, and whether the person is fit for the specific post.
Probing the intent was emphasised in this judgement. If the suppression
was a “bona fide” mistake regarding a minor issue (like a quashed FIR
or a petty case), the candidate should not be deprived of their livelihood.
4) While the learned Single Judge likely focused on the technical “violation
of rules” (non-disclosure), the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that
a mechanical rejection without looking at the nature of the case is
“arbitrary and unjust.”
5) Applying the “holistic view” approach adopted in recent Ravindra
Kumar‘s case (3 supra) by the Apex Court, this case needs to be
considered positively.
6) In Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. (2024), the Supreme Court explicitly
stated that non-disclosure of a criminal case that ended in acquittal is
not always fatal for employment. The court must check if the
suppression was “wilful” or a “bona fide” mistake. The courts have
warned against “broad-brushing” every instance of non-disclosure as a
disqualification. The Andhra Pradesh High Court itself has noted that
such rigidness is “completely oblivious to ground realities” and each
case must be assessed on its own merits.
7) In Avtar Singh‘s case, it was held that the employer must consider if the
offense involved moral turpitude. A local village feud in which tribal
factions approach police on trivial issues with case vs. counter-cases is
often considered and a local dispute rather than with a deep-seated
criminal character. The young man who was already got selected to a
police constable job may have been wantonly booked as an accused
23
after a dozen and odd names without his involving in any skirmish. The
petitioner was not involved in any other cases before or after this
particular case in which was acquitted later. This shows that his getting
an opportunity to become part of the law and order machinery was
wantonly tried to be obstructed by some local vested interests.
8) The “Triviality” of the nature of the offence he was made a party to, If
the young man was merely one of many accused (Accused No.13) in a
general tribal village scuffle, this is often viewed as a petty or trivial
matter that should not cost him his entire career. As deep rooted
genetic, epigenetic causes and impact of environmental circumstances
influence the opportunities and hurdles in an individual’s career growth
path. The petitioner from a remote tribal family background shouldn’t
lose the chance to serve the nation just because one small case in
which his name was remotely placed and later got acquitted.
9) While some of the elite people in society who are accused in several
grave criminal offences are facilitated to contest to the highest
legislative roles until they are held guilty, an ordinary educated tribal
youth shouldn’t be denied an opportunity to serve the society as a
constable. If this opportunity is denied to him, he won’t be eligible for
any such jobs in future which would push such lower rung marginalized
youth towards anti social violence spreading criminal groups. So in the
interest of the individual and society at large, considering the petitioner’s
clean antecedents and conduct throughout this period of waiting, we
hold that the cancellation of provisional selection of the petitioner to the
post of Police Constable (Civil) is illegal, arbitrary and such order was
passed by the appointing authority without exercing power with
objectivity and in a reasonable manner and thus it is liable to be
quashed.
24
21. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal is allowed with the following
directions:
(1) The order, dated 30.04.2025 of the learned single Judge of this Court
in W.P.(AT) No.22 of 2021 is hereby set aside.
(2) The cancellation orders vide Memorandum Rc.No.691/R&T/Genl.2/
2020, dated 29.04.2011 and Memorandum Rc.No.114/R&T/Admn.2/2013,
dated 22.12.2014, issued by the 2nd respondent are hereby quashed.
(3) The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant/petitioner in
service for the post of Police Constable (Civil) for which he was provisionally
selected, pursuant to his participation in the selection process under
notification-2008(2) of State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh,
within a period of four (04) weeks from today.
(4) The appellant/petitioner is entitled for all notional benefits, including
pay, seniority and other consequential benefits.
(5) The appellant/petitioner is not entitled for the arrears of salary for the
period during which he is not served.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Dated: 06.05.2026
PGR
25
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
&
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT APPEAL No.1364 of 2025
Dated: 06.05.2026
PGR
