Secy. Deptt. Of Home Secy.A.P. & Ors vs B. Chinnam Naidu on 9 February, 2005
28. This being the case, State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu is
clearly distinguishable, as in the facts of that case, the expression
"convicted" could not have possibly included the factum of arrest
which was pre-conviction. On the facts of the present case, we have
seen as to how UPSBC has indulged in a fraudulent practice and has
suppressed the fact that it was indicted for offences relatable to the
construction of a bridge by it, which had collapsed.