1 W.P.No. 3278 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3278 OF 2011 Anil Bajrang Patil ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.B. Bakhriya, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND NARESH H. PATIL, J. DATE : 29.8.2011 PER COURT : In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order dated 3.12.2010 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, dismissing the petitioner's Original Application No.181 of 2003. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable (Armed) in the State Reserved Police Force by order dated 17.11.1999. Thereafter by the impugned order dated 28.12.1999 petitioner's services came to be terminated without casting any stigma in the order of termination. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that the respondent employer filed affidavit in reply and pointed out that at the time of recruitment the petitioner had specifically mentioned in column no. 2 W.P.No. 3278 of 2011 11 (a) and (b) of the attestation form that the petitioner had never been prosecuted and that no case was pending against the petitioner in the Court of Law. This information was furnished on 20.10.1999, in spite of the fact that a complaint against the petitioner was registered on 26.9.1997 and criminal case No.157 of 1999 was pending against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paranda, District Osmanabad. The criminal case was registered under sections 147, 149, 336, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. It is true that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 20.2.2002, but the fact remains that on the date on which the petitioner furnished the attestation form for recruitment on 20.10.1999, the petitioner was facing a prosecution. In view of the above suppression of a material fact, there is nothing illegal in the respondent - employer terminating the petitioner's services within less than three months of the date of appointment, when the petitioner was admittedly appointed on probation. 3. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this petition. Petition dismissed. (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) CHIEF JUSTICE amj/wp3278.11