1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3921/2006. Deepak Chudaman Lokhande ..vs.. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. and another. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, office Memoranda of Coram Court's or Judge's appearances, Court's orders or directions order and Registrar's order. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mr. A.S.Kilor, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM: ANOOP V.MOHTA and C.L.PANGARKAR,JJ. DATE : 1st August, 2008. The petitioner was terminated on the ground of suppression of facts with regard to a pending prosecution. The petitioner is acquitted in a Criminal Case No.139 of 2003, even prior to his appointment. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions restricting his claim only to expunge those remarks in impugned order dated 6/2/2006, which reads as under - “Now, therefore, it is established that Shri Deepak Chudaman Lokhande, did not possess satisfactory antecedents and 2 character and his explanation to the show cause notice that he has inadvertently given false information in the Attestation Form, cannot be replied upon and there is sufficient ground to draw the conclusion that Shri Lokhande has deliberately suppressed vital and factual information in the declaration form which therefore, rendered him unfit for employment vide Clause No.10 of his Appointment letter No.CCI/HRD/RECTT/2005/3237 dated 17th June, 2005, and thereby, his services are liable to be terminated.” In view of this, we are of the view that those remarks in the present facts and circumstances of the case even if expunged or deleted, do not affect the impugned order as passed. Therefore, the said order is maintained, however, subject to deletion of portion as cited above. The petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE. chute 3