IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 79 OF 2009 (SS) Lokindra Kumar ……….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……….Respondents. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand. 17th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshuu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Brief Holder for State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was a recruit constable in P.A.C., Uttarakhand. He has challenged the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Appointing Authority i.e. respondent no. 3 and the order 26.12.2008 passed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent no. 2 respectively (contained as Annexure -2 & 4 to the writ petition respectively), by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a recruit constable vide order dated 10th April, 2006. However before this appointment could be given, the petitioner had given an affidavit to his Appointing Authority on 08.04.2006, in which he had categorically stated that there is no criminal case pending against him, nor any criminal case has been registered against him and that he has never been booked by police in any criminal case. He also stated that he has never been charged by the police and also that 2 there is no police investigation pending against him. It is further stated that in case the petitioner has given wrong facts or withheld any information from the authorities, the authorities will be at liberty to immediately remove the petitioner from service and they will also be free to impose any punishment to the petitioner. Based on this affidavit and the consequent appointment, the petitioner was taken in as a recruit constable. However, subsequently when the verification was made by the Police, it was found that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Jhabrera, district Haridwar being Criminal Case No. 77/04 under Section 147 / 148 / 149 / 325 / 324 / 323 / 307/452/504/506 of Indian Penal Code, which was pending before the competent Court on the relevant date i.e. on which the petitioner gave such an affidavit. This is nothing short of a fraud played by the petitioner. Since the petitioner had committed a fraud upon the appointing authority i.e. the State, vide order dated 31.8.2007, the services of the petitioner were terminated under the provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants Service Rules, 1975. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Authority i.e. respondent no. 2, which was also dismissed on 26.12.2008. Now against both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. This Court finds that there is no anomaly in both the orders passed by the appointing authority as well as appellate authority inasmuch as the petitioner has committed fraud upon the authorities by giving wrong facts and he procured the appointment in P.A.C. by knowingly giving wrong and incorrect information. It is a clear case of fraud. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that consequently the petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 22nd June, 2006, in the above criminal case. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that on the date, the petitioner had given an affidavit to the appointing authority, such a criminal case was pending against him and even though the petitioner has been subsequently acquitted in the criminal case, it will not absolve the petitioner from the fraud he has already committed. It is a settled position of law that fraud vitiates everything and no indulgence in this writ petition can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 17.11.2009 Rathour