Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   11387    /2013 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20669 of 2012]

Karri Ram Babu and others …  Appellant  (s)   

Versus

Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad and others … Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.    

2. Appellants participated in the process of selection for  

appointment  to  the  post  of  police  constables  

S.C.T.P.C.  (Civil)  (Men)  initiated  as  per  Notification  

dated  30.12.2008  issued  by  the  first  respondent.  

According to the appellants, as there was inordinate  

delay in the announcement of results of the written  

examination,  they  staged  a  dharna in  front  of  the  

District Police Office, Kakinada along with many other  

candidates on 17.04.2010 demanding announcement  

of  the  results  without  delay.  It  is  alleged  that  the  1

Page 2

protestors  were  removed  by  the  Sub-Inspector  of  

Police, Kakinada II Police Station and were taken to  

the police station and were released after some time.  

Subsequently,  the  results  were  announced.  

Appellants were successful  and,  on being selected,  

they were sent for the nine months induction training  

w.e.f.  17.04.2011.  While  they were undergoing the  

training, Memorandum dated 20.04.2011 was issued  

by  the  first  respondent  stating  that  the  appellants  

were selected on account of an oversight regarding  

their involvement in a criminal case and, hence, their  

selection  should  be  cancelled.  Accordingly,  the  

Principal of the Police Training College discharged the  

appellants  and  four  others  as  per  memorandum  

dated  21.4.2011.  The  appellants  approached  the  

Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, which  

by  order  dated  28.09.2011,  dismissed  their  

applications holding as follows:

“The applicants signed the attestation forms  on  27.12.2010,  28.12.2010  and  29.12.2010  respectively and in column No. 16, they declared  that they were not involved in any criminal case  and  they  were  not  arrestee.  The  incident  took  place on 17.4.2010 whereas the attesting forms  were  signed  by  the  applicants  on  27.12.2010,  28.12.2010  and  29.12.2010  respectively.  Clearly  the  applicants  suppressed  the  information  regarding  the  registration  of  the  case  and  also  

2

Page 3

their arrest. Therefore, there are no merits in the  OA., and the O.A. is, accordingly, dismissed. …”  

3.  The  order  of  the  Administrative  Tribunal  was  

challenged  before  the  High  Court,  leading  to  the  

impugned order  dated 10.04.2012.  The High Court  

concurred with the view taken by the Administrative  

Tribunal.

4. It  is  the case of the appellants that they were not  

aware  of  their  involvement  in  any  criminal  case.  

According to them, they were not arrested; they were  

only removed from the place of dharna to the police  

station and were released after some time. It  is  in  

such  circumstances  only,  while  filling-up  the  

attestation  form,  they  stated  that  they  were  not  

involved in any criminal case. It is only later that they  

came to know that the police had registered FIR No.  

74 of 2010 against them on the file of the Kakinada II  

Town  Police  Station,  East  Godavari  District  in  

connection  with  the  alleged  incident  of  dharna.  

Appellants content that had they been aware of this  

fact, they would have specifically mentioned it when  

the attestation forms were submitted.  

3

Page 4

5. For the purpose of easy reference, we shall extract  

the relevant portion of the attestation form:

“16 .

Whether   you  were   involved  in   any criminal  case?  Yes   No If yes, indicate (a) Crime No. (b) Year (c) Name of the Police Station (d) Name of the district (e)  Whether you were arrested  by police?

Yes  No

(f)  Whether  you  were  prosecuted  by  the  police in a court of law? If so, indicate the  present stage of this case:      (1) under trial      (2) convicted      (3) compounded      (4) acquitted Note:  (1)  if  convicted  whether  such  conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal  or  set  aside  by  the  appellate  Court  if  appealed against: (2) If involved in a criminal case subsequent  to  the  completion  and  submission  of  this  form,  the  details  should  be  informed  immediately  to  the  authority  to  whom the  attestation form has been submitted earlies  failing  which  it  will  be  deemed  to  be  a  suppression of factual information (3) If  you were involved in more than one  criminal case?                                            Yes           No

(Emphasis supplied)

4

”

Page 5

6. The  first  respondent  has  filed  a  counter  affidavit  

before this Court. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit  

reads as follows:

“I  respectfully  submit  that  while  selection  process  was  going  on  and  even  before  announcement  of  the  results  of  the  selection  process,  the Petitioners herein have misbehaved,  staging a dharna/protect before the District Police  Office,  Kakinada  on  17.04.2010  demanding  to  announce  the  police  constables  results  quickly.  The SI of police, II Town Police Station of Kakinada  of  East  Godavari  District  has  arrested  them  at  about 12.15 PM and registered a crime No. 74 of  2010 u/s  151 Cr.PC.  The have been detained at  the  said  Police  Station  upto  6.00  P.M.  But  subsequently the said case was dropped treating it  as preventive act. So, the Petitioner herein were  very  much aware  that  they  have  been  arrested  and the said crime was registered against them.  They have suppressed the said fact of their arrest  and  registration  of  the  said  crime  in  the  attestation form which was signed by them and  submitted  on  27.12.2010,  28.12.2010  and  29.12.2010 respectively,  which  was  much  subsequent to their arrest and registration of the  said crime on 17.04.2010.”  

(Emphasis supplied)

7. We have also gone through Annexure P1-FIR wherein  

it is recorded that the appellants have been removed  

under Section 151 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,  

1973.  There is no case for the respondents that the  

petitioners had been informed of registration of the  

case.  It is not stated in the FIR as to what was the  

cognizable  offence  which  the  appellants  had  

5

Page 6

designed to  commit.  There is  also  no case for  the  

respondents that the appellants had been informed  

of  their  arrest  or  that  they have been released on  

bail. In such circumstances, in our view, it cannot be  

said that the appellants were aware of the fact that  

they had been involved in any criminal case. A close  

analysis of the attestation form would show that only  

if  the  first  question  regarding  involvement  in  any  

criminal case is answered in affirmative, the rest of  

the  columns  needed  to  be  filled-up.  As  we  have  

already stated above, the appellants were not aware  

of their involvement in any criminal case.  Therefore,  

there  is  no  question  of  their  suppressing  any  fact  

regarding  their  alleged  arrest.  The  whole  case  of  

respondents  and,  as  seen  by  the  Administrative  

Tribunal  and the High Court,  is  that the appellants  

had suppressed their  arrest  in  connection with  FIR  

No. 74 of 2010. As we have explained above, it is not  

a  situation  of  the  appellants  getting  involved  in  a  

criminal case, in which they were under-trials or the  

trial is compounded or where there is conviction or  

acquittal,  as  explained  in  column  16(f)  as  the  

attributes  of  a  criminal  case.  If  that  be  so,  the  

6

Page 7

appellants were not expected even to fill-up column  

no.  16(e)  and,  thus,  there  is  no  question  of  any  

suppression of any material fact.

8. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated  

10.04.2012  of  the  High  Court,  order  dated  

28.09.2011of  the  Administrative  Tribunal  and  the  

impugned  memoranda  dated  20.04.2011  and  

21.04.2011 are set aside.  The appellants shall be re-

inducted  for  training  immediately.  They  shall  be  

permitted to complete the training to the extent of  

the unexpired period. Their original seniority shall be  

restored.  The  appellants  shall  be  entitled  to  

continuity  of  service  at  par  with  their  compeers.  

However,  we  make  it  clear  that  they  shall  not  be  

entitled to any emoluments during the period they  

had been kept out. But it is made clear that if this  

order  is  not  implemented  within  a  period  of  one  

month from the date of  production of  copy of  this  

judgment before the first respondent, the appellants  

shall be entitled to all service benefits including the  

salary for the period they have been kept out and the  

officers responsible for  the delay will  be personally  

liable for the same. 7

Page 8

9. We find that there were four candidates proceeded  

against on this issue.  All  the four were before the  

State  Administrative  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court.  

Apparently,  one  among  them  has  not  traveled  to  

Delhi, to this Court.  If the same is owing to financial  

constraints, justice shall not be denied to him on that  

count.  For doing complete justice in this cause, we  

make it clear that the benefit of this judgment shall  

be  available  to  the  third  petitioner  before  the  

Tribunal and the High Court (Vanamadi Beema Raju),  

in case he is interested, who shall be duly informed.

10. There is no order as to costs.

                                                                                                       …………….….. …………J.

                             (GYAN SUDHA  

MISRA)

                                                                                                                                                     ……………. ………………J.

            (KURIAN  JOSEPH)

New Delhi; July 11, 2013.   

8