IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.768 of 2010 1. SATISH KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O LATE INDRADEO SINGH R/O VILL.- KARATH, P.O.- KARATH, P.S.- TARARI, DISTT.- BHOJPUR AT ARAH Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR SECTOR, CRPF, PATNA 3. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE G.C., CRPF, MOKAMAGHAT, PATNA(BIHAR) ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate. Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, A.S.G. ==== 3. 05.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Constable (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as “C.R.P.F.”). At the time of his appointment he submitted a verification roll in which he is said to have withheld information about the factum of his being accused in Tarari P.S.Case No. 32 and 33 of 2005 and on such ground his probation in the force has been cancelled. The cancellation order has also been affirmed by the appellate authority under orders dated 12th September, 2009, Annexure-5 on the ground that his subsequent acquittal in Tarari P.S.Case No. 32 of 2005 does not improve the position that he withheld the information of his being accused in the said case at the time of submitting verification roll. 3. Counsel for the petitioner assails the order by which his probation in the force has been cancelled as also the appellate order dated 12th September, 2009, Annexure-5 on the ground that he was made accused in the two cases but he had no information about his being accused in the case although his brother Arbind Singh had applied for grant of bail in one of the two cases on 28.5.2005 but since Arbind Singh was on inimical terms with the petitioner he never informed the petitioner about the fact that he was also - 2 - accused in the two cases otherwise petitioner would have also obtained bail in the said case on 28.5.2005 when Arbind Singh was allowed bail or soon thereafter. 4. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the aforesaid prayer. He states that petitioner and Arbind Singh were never on inimical terms as after conviction both filed the appeal together and in support of such fact counsel submits that he is ready to produce the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner and Arbind Singh. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India, I am not inclined to go behind the impugned order passed by the authorities including the appellate order but shall grant liberty to the petitioner to represent before the competent authority in the force to convince the authority about the fact that information about the complicity of the petitioner in the two cases was withheld by his brother from him and he could know about the two cases on 7.9.2007 when he moved bail petition in Tarari P.S.Case No. 32 of 2005 and prior thereto he had no information about his complicity in the two cases and that he submitted the verification roll completely unaware of his complicity in the two cases. 6. The representation filed by the petitioner in the light of the liberty granted by this Court be considered and disposed of by the competent authority in the force in accordance with law with compassion as these days it is very difficult for any one to succeed in a selection test. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)