HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1054 of 2006 (S/S) Kuldeep Kumar …. Petitioner .. Versus State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents Sri Atul Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 13th October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Sri Atul Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 6.7.2006 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, district Haridwar. By order dated 6.7.2006 (which has been presently impugned in the writ petition), the Senior Superintendent of Police, district Haridwar has dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner was appointed on 10.4.2006 on the post of constable in the Uttaranchal Civil Police. However, this appointment of the petitioner was subject to the verification of the records and the documents submitted by the petitioner. This is an admitted position. While applying for the post of constable the petitioner had given an undertaking in form of an affidavit which clearly stipulates, inter alia, that no F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner nor the petitioner been charged in a criminal matter. However, when these facts were verified by the verifying agencies of the Police Department, it was found that an F.I.R. under Section 307 I.P.C. was filed against the 2 petitioner. Consequently thereafter the petitioner was charged under Section 323/324 of I.P.C. though the trial court acquitted the petitioner for benefit of doubt. The criminal case against the petitioner was bearing no. 544/1998 under Section 323/324 at Police Station Manglore, district Haridwar. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case though subsequently acquitted for benefit of doubt yet it was absolutely necessary for the petitioner to have disclosed this fact with the concerned authority as was the requirement as per the advertisement which is also admitted by the petitioner. This being the position, this Court finds no anomaly in the termination order of the petitioner. The petitioner has been rightly dismissed from the service as he had gained employment by not only suppressing fact but by giving wrong affidavit to the concerned authority. It is no less than a case of fraud. A fraud played on the authority of the Police Department. It is a settled position of law that the fraud vitiates everything. Apart from this, it was a clear stipulated condition that appointment of the petitioner would be subject to the verification of the documents filed by him and it was also clearly stipulated in the advertisement that an affidavit will be given by the applicant stating that no criminal case was filed against him. The petitioner has given a false affidavit in order to gain employment. There is no fault in the order of termination impugned in the petition. The services of the petitioner have been rightly terminated. The case has absolutely no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.10.2009 Avneet