IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8606 of 2010 1. RAVINDRA KUMAR PASWAN, S/O SHRI BUDHESHWAR PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE BELMOHAN, P.O. SUDAI RATAULI, P.S.- PHULPARAS,DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA ,THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. 2. I.G.P. NWS, C.R.P.F. CHANDIGARH (U.T.). 3. D.I.G.P.G.C.,C.R.P.F. JALANDHAR, (PUNJAB). 4. D.I.G.P. JALANDHAR RANGE,C.R.P.F.,JALANDHAR (PUNJAB). 5. THE COMMANDANT RECRUITMENT CELL, A.T.C.C. MOKAMAGHAT,CT/CD (MALE),BIHAR-2007. 6. THE COMMANDANT-128BN, C.R.P.F. SPUN SILK MILL JAGI ROAD, DISTRICT- MORIGAON (ASSAM). 7. PRINCIPAL R.T.C.C.R.P.F. NEEMUCH (M.P.). ----------- 3. 23.06.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed certified copy of the compromise petition dated 23.1.2008 which was signed by the informant of Fulparas P.S.Case No.108 of 2004 and the accused persons of the said case including the petitioner in support of the averments made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition with a request to take the same on record as on account of inadvertence of the learned counsel for the petitioner same could not be annexed along with the petition. Considering the request of the counsel for the petitioner the compromise petition dated 23.1.2008 is taken on record of this case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3rd February, 2010, Annexure-13, whereunder his revision application filed against the dismissal, appellate order has been dismissed affirming the finding of the disciplinary, appellate authority that petitioner suppressed relevant information while filing application for appointment on the post of Constable (G.D.) in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as “C.R.P.F.”). It is evident from the orders impugned that petitioner suppressed the information that he was an accused in connection with Fulparas P.S.Case No. 108 of 2004 dated 24.7.2004 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 447, 452, 504, 379, 427 of the Penal Code which was filed by Veena Devi, wife of Mitto Paswan, an agnate/co-villager of the petitioner against the petitioner and others in which charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other accused persons dated 15.12.2005 but while submitting application for appointment on the post of Constable in the C.R.P.F in response to the advertisement published in the year 2007 petitioner did not furnish the information that he along with others was - 2 - accused in the aforesaid Fulparas P.S.Case No. 108 of 2004. Later, petitioner was appointed as Constable in the C.R.P.F. vide appointment letter dated 5.2.2008 , Annexure-3. After appointment of the petitioner verification was sought from the authorities of his native district and then it transpired that petitioner was accused in Fulparas P.S.Case No. 108 of 2004. On the basis of the information received during verification a departmental proceeding was taken against him alleging that he suppressed relevant information while submitting his application for appointment on the post of Constable, after conclusion of the proceeding he has been dismissed from service in the light of the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The dismissal order has been affirmed in appeal and revision vide order dated 3rd February, 2010, Annexure-13. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after lodging of the aforesaid case cordial relationship prevailed between the petitioner, other accused and the informant and the matter was compromised, as is evident from the compromise petition dated 23.1.2008 and in appreciation of such fact that the case was compromised, petitioner was also acquitted in the trial vide judgment dated 30th July, 2009 and in appreciation of the fact that the matter stood already resolved between the petitioner and the informant information about lodging of the aforesaid case was not given in the application form. Aforesaid statement that on account of the case/dispute having been compromised/settled the information was not furnished in the application form does not appear to be true in view of the fact that the compromise petition is dated 23.1.2008 and the application for appointment was invited in the year 2007 which must have been filed soon thereafter and the case stood registered on 24.7.2004. In the circumstances, information about lodging of the said case was required to have been given in the application form in the column meant for such information. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)