IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ------------- Letters Patent Appeal No.751 of 2010 ------------- Appeal against the judgment and order dated 25-03- 2010 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4515 of 2010. 1.Rajesh Ranjan Kumar @ Shashi Ranjan Sharma, Son of Shri Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, R/o village- Mustafapur, P.S.Dhanarua,Dist. Patna....... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. The Inspector General of Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Central Reserve Police Force, Range- II, Ajmer. 4. Commandant 67 BN, Central Reserve Police Force, Polo Ground, Shilong, Meghalaya. 5. Commandant, Recruitment Cell, Mokamaghat CT/GD ( Male ) Bihar........................... Respondents ---------- For the Appellant :- M/s Alka Verma, Advocate Shankar Kumar, Advocate 5 26-8-2011 Heard the parties on merit. There is no denial that at the time of appointment to the post of constable in C.R.P.F. on probation the appellant/writ petitioner suppressed the information or fact that he was involved in a criminal case bearing Dhanarua P.S. Case No.174 of 2006 for offences under sections 304- B, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. When the fact of such suppression came to the notice of the authorities, by order dated 18th February, 2009 the probation of the 2 appellant was terminated. In the meantime the criminal case proceeded vide Sessions Trial No. 726 of 2008 and the appellant was acquitted by judgment dated 23-5-2009. Armed with judgment of acquittal the appellant approached the authority to reconsider the order of termination of his probation. Such request was rejected by the impugned order dated 9th February, 2010 which is annexure-7 to the writ petition. The writ court has dismissed the writ petition after appreciating the fact that probation of the appellant was terminated on the ground that while joining the Force the writ petitioner withheld information about his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case. Hence, it was found that subsequent acquittal was not a relevant issue so far as withholding of information itself was concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon some judgments of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court to support the contention that an order of discharge or removal cannot be camouflaged and there must be a proceeding in accordance with the established procedure, the relevant rules and Article 311 (2) of the 3 Constitution of India in case the removal is for any misconduct. We have no difficulty in accepting the proposition of law but on facts the said proposition does not apply. The appellant has not been removed from service, his probation has been terminated and that also not for any misconduct while in service but on account of suppression of his involvement in a criminal case at the time of recruitment on probation. In such a case only an enquiry to find out the correct facts is necessary. Since in the present the fact that the appellant was involved in a criminal case at the time of recruitment on probation and he withheld this information is not at all in dispute, we are not persuaded to direct the authorities to conduct any further enquiry against the appellant. The judgment of writ court requires no interference. The appeal is dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey, J ) 4