KARRI RAM BABU AND OTHERSversusCHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

                    (2013] 17 S.C.R. 947


             KARRI RAM BABU AND OTHERS                             A.
                              v                            .
   CHAIRMAN, STATE L.EVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT
         BOARD, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS
           (Civil Appeal No. 11387 of 2013)
                                                                   B
                       JULY 11, 2013.
   [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Service Law:
                                                                   c
      Discharge of police constables for suppressing
information in attestation form - Appellants participating in a
'dharna' - Removed to police station and released - Held: It
cannot be said that the appellants were aware of the fact that
they had been involved in any criminal case - There is no          D
question of their suppressing any fact regarding their alleged
arrest - Impugned orders and memoranda quashed - In order
to do r:;omplete justice, benefit also given to third petitioner
before High Court and Tribunal, who could not approach
Supreme Court owing to financial constraints - Constitution        E
of India, 1950 - Art. 142 rlw Art. 136 - Appeal - Benefit
 eJ6lended to non-appellant-trainee ..

        The appellants participated in the process of
   selection for appointment to the post of police constables
   S.C.T.P.C. (Civil) (Men). As there was inordinate delay in F
   the announcement of results of the written examination,
   they along with many others staged a dharna in front of
   the District Police Office on 17,4.2010. The protestors
   were removed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, and were ·
   taken to the police station and were released after some G
   time the_same day. Subsequently, the results were
   announced. The appellants were selected and Were sent
   for training where a Memorandum dated 20.04.2011 was
.. issued to them by the first respondent stating that they
                               ·947                           ·H
   948      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 17 S.C.R.


A were selected on account of an oversight regarding their
  involvement in a criminal case and, therefore, their
  selection should be cancelled. Accordingly, the Principal
  of the Police Training College discharged the appellants
  as per memorandum dated 21.4.2011. The State
B Administrative Tribunal dismissed their applications
  holding that in the attestation forms, which they filled in
  December, 2010, they suppressed the information
  regarding the registration of the case and ais'o their arrest
  which had taken place on 17.4.2010. The High Court
c affirmed the view of the Administrative Tribunal.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. It has been recorded in the FIR that the
  appellants were removed u/s 151 of the Code of Criminal
D Procedure, 1973. There is no case that the appellants had
  ,been informed of their arrest or that they had been
  released on bail. It cannot be said that the appellants
  were aware of the fact that they had been involved in any
  criminal case. The attestation form would show that only
E 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 the appellants were not aware
  of their involvement in any criminal case, there is no
  question of their suppressing any fact regarding their
F alleged arrest. [para 7] [952-F-H; 953-A]

      1.2. The impugned judgment dated 10.04.2012 of the
  High Court, order dated 28.09.2011 of the Administrative
  Tribunal and the impugned memoranda dated 20.04.2011
  and 21.04.2011 are set aside. The appellants shall be re-
G inducted for training immediately and permitted to
  complete the training to the extent of the unexpired
  period. Their original seniority shall be restored.
  However, they shall not be entitled to any emoluments
  during the period they had been kept out. In order to do
H complete justice in the cause, it is made clear that the
       KARRI RAM BABU v. CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL POLICE            949
              RECRUITMENT BOARD, HYDERABAD
     benefit of this judgment shall be available to the third            A
     petitioner before the Tribunal and the High Court, in case
     he is interested. [paras 8-9] [953-D-E, H; 954-A]
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
     11387 of 2013.
                                                                         B
          From the Judgment & Order dated 10.4.2012 of the High
     Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ
     Petition W.P. No. 9729 of 2012.

        G.V.R. Choudary, A. Chandra Sekhar, K. Shivraj                   c
     Choudhari for the f\ppellants.

         A.T.M. Rangaramanjam, B. Debojit, G.N. Reddy for. the
     Respondents.

~,
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                      D

         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      E
     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           F
     delay. It is alleged that the 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      G
     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           H
    950       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 17·S.C.R.


A 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
8 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
c         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 their arrest. Therefore,
D         there are no merits in the OA., and the O.A. is, accordingly,
          dismissed .... "

       3. The order of the Administrative Trib4nal was challenged
  before the High Court, leading to the impugned order dated
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
   KARRI RAM BABU v. CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL POLICE             951
    . RECRUITMENT BOARD, HYDERABAD [KURIAN, J.]

     5. For the purpose of easy reference, we shall extract the     A
relevant portion of the attestation form:
                                                       . .
  '16. Whether you were involved in any
       criminal case?                                 Yes No
      If yes, indicate                                              B

      (a) Crime No.
      (b) Year
      (c) Name of the Police Station
                                                                    c
       (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
                                                                    D
       of this case:
       (1) under trial
       (2) convicted
       (3) compounded                                               E
       (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:
                                                                    F
       (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       G
     . factual information
       (3) If you were involved in more ttian one criminal
       case?                                     Yes No
                                       (Emphasis supplied)          H
    952       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A        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
B         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
c         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
D         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
E         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
F
  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
  designed to commit. There is also no case for the respondents
  that the appellants had been informed of their arrest or that they
G 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 tha.j!ttestation form would show that only if the first question
   regarding involvement in any criminal case is answered in
H affirmative, the rest of the columns needed to be filled-up. As
  KARRI RAM BABU v. CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL POLICE               953
    RECRUITMENT BOARD, HYDERABAD [KURIAN, J.]

we have already stated above, the appellants were not aware            A
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           B
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 appellants were      c
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               D
20.04.2011 and 21.04.2011 are set aside. The appellants shall
be reinducted 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.       E
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          F
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.

     9. We find that there were four candidates proceeded
against on this issue. All the four were before the State              G
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
                                                                       H
    954      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 17 S.C.R.


A make it clear that the benefit of this judgment shall be available
  to the third petitioner before the Tribunal and the High Court
  (Vanamadi Seema Raju), in case he is interested, who shall
  be duly informed.

          10. There is no order as to costs.
B
    Rajendra Prasad                                   Appeal allowed.