Broad Brushing Every Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Case As Disqualification Is Unjust; Each Case Must Be Assessed On Its Merits: Andhra Pradesh HC
|The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that treating every instance of non-disclosure of a criminal case as grounds for disqualification is unjust and fails to consider the realities of each situation.
The Court said that the merits of each case must be assessed individually.
The bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed, “Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities. Each case will depend on the facts and of its own case.”
Advocate M. Srinivasa Rao appeared for the Appellant and Advocate R.S. Murthy appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The respondent applied for the post of SCT PC (A.R.) (Men) but his provisional selection was cancelled by the authorities for not disclosing his involvement in a criminal case under Section 324 IPC. He challenged this cancellation before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which allowed his application and directed the authorities to send him for training. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
The Court took note of the decision relied on by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar where according to the Court it was held, “the offence was not serious, mere non-mention would not automatically disqualify. In such cases, a more lenient view should be taken.”
The Court further referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. and according to the Court SC observed, “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.”
The Court also mentioned the decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and observed, “that 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.”
The Court said that there was no illegality in the order of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.Koti Reddy (Neutral Citation: APHC010150172012)