CWP 326/94 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.326/1994 Satya Pal Versus Union of India & Anr. Date of Order ::: 10/04/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Vinod Goyal for Mr. V.Lodha, for petitioner Ms Sweta Pareek for Mr. Sanjay Pareek, for respondents Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.14/07/93 (Ann.3) whereby respondents terminated services of petitioner in exercise of powers U/r 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (“Rules, 1965”). Applications were invited by respondents for the post of Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (“CRPF”) - in pursuance whereof, petitioner, considering himself as eligible, filled up application form and after his participation in process of selection, on being found suitable, was appointed as Constable vide order dt.06/02/93 (Ann.1). However, his services were terminated vide order dt.14/07/93 (Ann.3). Counsel for petitioner submits that while terminating services of petitioner, no reasons have been assigned and even while passing order impugned, opportunity of hearing was also not afforded to him and such action of respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice. In CWP 326/94 //2// support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Secy. Department Of Home, AP Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu (2005(2) SCC 746). After notices were issued, respondents in their reply specifically averred that at the time of filling up application form, in Col.12, petitioner was called upon to disclose as to whether he was facing any criminal prosecution or there is any criminal case pending in any court of law; and in both the Cols.(12(a) and 12(b), he specifically mentioned “No” and thereby he suppressed material facts as he was facing criminal trial for offences U/Ss 147, 341, 323, 324 read with S.149, IPC and in course of trial, because of compromise, he was acquitted and for offence U/s 147, IPC, since he accepted guilt, was held guilty but was given benefit of probation U/s 360, CrPC by trial Court as is evident from judgment dt.25/09/93 (Ann.2). Counsel for respondents submits that since there was suppression of material fact, and he made false declaration, his services have rightly been terminated vide order impugned. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in R.Radha Krishnan Vs. Director Gen. of Police (2008(1) SCC 660/AIR 2008 SC 578). I have considered contentions of the CWP 326/94 //3// parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. A look at original application form filed by petitioner on 16/03/93 placed for perusal, shows that in Col.12 applicant was called upon to disclose as to whether he was facing criminal prosecution or there is criminal case pending in court of law. Col.12 reads ad infra: “12.(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention, or bound down/fined, convicted by court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or other education authority /institution ? No (b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/institution at the time of filing up this verification Roll ? If answer to (a) or (b) is “Yes” then details of prosecution, detention fine, conviction, and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the court/university/ education authority at the time of filing in this form ? No In both the Col.12(a) & (b), petitioner specifically mentioned “No” and at the same time, there is declaration made by petitioner in application form, itself, under Caption “Warning” mentioning particularly in Col.3 at the top CWP 326/94 //4// thereof, to the effect that if false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of information in the verification Roll comes to the notice at any time during the service of a person, would be liable to be terminated. From a perusal of judgment of acquittal (Ann.2) dt.25/09/93 having been passed on the basis of compromise, it appears that learned trial Court passed acquittal order and so also of his confession holding him guilty for offence alleged U/s 147, IPC, however, granted benefit of probation U/s 360, CrPC to him. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that on the date of filling up application form on 16/03/93, criminal case was pending against petitioner, which he has failed to disclose and thus suppressed material fact despite being supposed to disclose for consideration of appointment to the post of Constable in CRPF. Taking note of declaration and the fact of suppression of material facts, respondents terminated services of petitioner in exercise of powers U/r 5(1) of Rules, 1965. In Dharampal Singh Vs. State (2000(2) WLC Raj. 400), Full Bench of this Court at para 14 observed as under : “In this view, suppression of material information or furnishing it CWP 326/94 //5// wrongly in column No.17 of the form is a vital factor,which goes against the candidate. Rule 15 of the Rules empowers the authority to deny appointment or debar such candidate for admission to any examination or appearance at any interview either permanently or for specified period.” After taking note of catena of decisions, Full Bench observed at para 26 as under : “26. In the light of the facts stated and the discussion made above, we answer the questions 1 to 3 aforementioned as follows : 1.That a candidate was prosecuted or subjected to investigation on a criminal charge is a material fact, suppression of which would entitle an employer to deny employment to a candidate on that ground. 2.That ultimate acquittal of a candidate, who was prosecuted on a criminal charge, would not condone or wash out the consequences of suppression of the fact that he was prosecuted. 3. That suppression of material fact would itself dis-entitle a candidate from being appointed in service.” Even in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ramaratan Yadav (JT 2003(2) SC 256), Apex Court observed : - “.. The object of requiring information in various columns like Column No.12 of the attestation form and declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. When a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information he cannot CWP 326/94 //6// claim any right for appointment or continuance in service. There can be no dispute to this position in law. But on the facts of the case it cannot be said that the respondent had made false declaration or had suppressed material information.” (Emphasis laid) In R.Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police (supra), Apex Court observed ad infra: “10. Indisputably, appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to se4ve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event, such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.” “13. In instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.” CWP 326/94 //7// In the decision in Secy. Department Of Home, AP Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu (supra) cited by Counsel for petitioner, applicant was supposed to disclose as to whether he was ever convicted, and at relevant time, case was pending against the applicant, whereas in instant case, petitioner was supposed to disclose in Col.12 of application about facing criminal prosecution or pendency of criminal case before any court of law and in view whereof, it was a case of suppression of material fact which petitioner was supposed to disclose in application form; thus the judgment cited (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner. Consequently, writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.7/326CW94-1004.doc