1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.921/2009 Raman Kumar Meena vs UOI & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 14.10.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Dr. PS Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. VK Mathur, for the respondents <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is of young age when he applied for the post of Asstt. Commandant CPF in the year 2006. While filling up the verification roll on 5.9.2007, the petitioner was supposed to disclose whether he was ever prosecuted, arrested and/or kept under detention or even bound down or confined or was convicted by court of law for any offence. The petitioner gave reply in negative. However, during verification the fact, fact came to the knowledge of the respondents that petitioner faced criminal case lodged under Section 323, 451 and 34 IPC and he was arrested also, however was released on bail. The respondents refused to accord appointment to the petitioner vide order dated 15.12.2008, hence, the petitioner has preferred this 2 writ petition, seeking quashing of the order dated 15.12.2008. Reply to the writ petition has been filed and it has been stated that petitioner deliberately to get appointment has given false information that he was never involved in any criminal case. It was also stated by the respondents that petitioner was involved in heinous crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner in young age if was involved in a criminal case and that has been compromised long back before the petitioner's seeking appointment then the petitioner entire career cannot be ruined by denying the appointment. It is submitted that the respondents are under impression that the petitioner was involved in heinous crime. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that petitioner was prosecuted and he was released on bail. The petitioner admitted that he was acquitted by the court because of compromise only. Be that as it may, the petitioner was guilty of giving false information and, therefore, if the respondents have denied the appointment to the petitioner in discipline force service, there is no illegality in that. 3 In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-