(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1533 OF 1998 Sunil s/o. Bhimrao Jaybhai, Age : 22 years, Occupation : at present nil, R/o. Nagarwadi, Taluka : Loha, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India [Through the Central Government's Standing Counsel, High Court Building at Aurangabad]. 2. The Office In Charge, R.T.C. C.R.P.F., Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Additional DIG CRPF, Jhoroda Kalan, New Delhi - 72. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 20TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order of termination dated 16th March 1995, issued by respondent no.3. A further relief is sought, that the respondent nos.2 and 3 be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. 2. Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner was terminated on account of a criminal case pending against him, under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, the case ought to have been reopened and the petitioner reinstated after he was acquitted in the criminal case. 3. Perusal of the affidavit in reply, filed on behalf of the respondents, would reveal that the termination is not on account of pendency of the criminal case, but is on account of a false declaration in column No.12(a) of Verification Roll, to the effect that the petitioner was never arrested or no criminal case was pending against him due to which he would be disqualified for Government service. On inquiry, it was found that the petitioner (3) was arrested prior to the enlistment and criminal case was pending for trial against him. The services of the petitioner were purely temporary in nature. A person, who gives false and incorrect information and suppresses the material facts from the appointing authority, is not entitled for the relief, as is claimed by the petitioner. 4. In the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1533