WA 384/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR J CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Ms R Bora, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15-2-08 in WP(C) No.936/ 02, the Union of India and its Officers have filed the present appeal. The chall enge made in the writ petition was to an order of removal of the writ petitioner , who was recruited as Water Carrier Constable in the CRPF. The removal was orde red on the allegation that the writ petitioner while furnishing information on h is candidature had suppressed certain facts pertaining to pendency of criminal c ases against him. As the appellant on subsequent enquiry came to know that such criminal cases were pending, and having concluded that the writ petitioner had s uppressed the fact of pendency of the criminal cases while filling up his applic ation forms, ordered for his removal. On the removal order being challenged before the learned Single Judge, i t was found that there is no material available on record to show personal knowl edge of the petitioner about the pendency of the criminal cases or that the peti tioner had suppressed information on his involvement in the criminal cases, whil e he had offered his candidature. The learned Single Judge also found that as the petitioner was not a mem ber of the Force at the time of filling up of the application form, therefore, t he action taken against him under Sec 11(1) of the CRPF Act was not justified. O n the above conclusion the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and se t aside the removal order dated 6-9-01 passed against the petitioner. Even during the appellate proceeding, we had asked the learned Central G ovt Counsel as to whether there is any material to show that the writ petitioner was aware of the pendency of the criminal cases against him, at the time of fil ling up his application form, but the learned counsel failed to point out anythi ng from the case record to indicate such knowledge of the writ petitioner at the relevant time, i.e., when the information was furnished at the time of filling up of the application form. In view of above, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal. W e are in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion given by the learned Si ngle Judge and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.