.";r!;?';:;tit,. ^k ''*!> ;;:';'^':y^^. 'i ^J °i;fc"" '.i/ ESits|;,:s;(t'1' T, AP^ Ramiat Kuiur, aged 32 vears, S/o. Righan Kujur, R/o. Vii'ags Raghunathpur, Tah. Pathaigaon, District Jashpur (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Home Secrefary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(CQ). 2. C-Qmmandant 10th Bata'ian, Chhattlsgarh Arms Force, Sarguja Ambikapur. under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of india) S: Hon'bte Mr. Shri N.K. Chattet'jee, counsel for ttie petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General fortheState. (Passedon this 11th iy this petition under Articie petitioner impugns the order eiated the seiection of the petitioner to ths afSepte'nber, 2008] of the Constitution of (ndia, the i-2034 (Annexure P./2) v;hereunder of Constabte was canceiied on the jround that the petitioner has deiiberately concealsd tha fact of pendsncy of criminal cases sn the attestation form, v/hich was ffled by him after seieetion. 2) The indispi.ltable facts, in nutsheil, as projectad by the petitioner are that the petitioner applied for the post of ConstabSe iying vacant in the battalion. After going through the due selection process, frie petitioner was selected for the said post. Thereafter, the respondent authorities ssnt the petitioner for training. During the course oftraining, the petitioner was directed tofiilupthe attestation form. In the attestatsonform at coiumn No.12, ttie petitsoner was required to submit information with regard to criminat cases antecedents. The petitioner has concealed facts about cnminai eases fited or pending against him. Therefore, due to said act of suppression of /y^c^. S ^S^^Si •<\ '»> .gl ^T-:^ 2. - fasts by the petitioner, the respondent authorities by order cfated 25-8-2004 fAnnexure P/1) tenninated the services ofthe oefitioner. 3) Mr. Chatenee, iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner woutd submit that the oetltioner Drosecuted his ooiytechnic studies in NawEigaon, Dsstt. Chhaterpur during the period from 1996 to 2000, when a criminaS case was registered against the petitioner and other persons in Police Station Nawagaon for comrriission crf offence punishabie under Sections 294, 147, 323, 149 & 508 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in ttie said case the petitioner was acquiited on the ground (rf compromise arrived at between tie compiainanf and the accused persons and the prosecution case in crims No.44/99 was ciosed. Therefore, whiie filSing up ttie verification fonn, the petitioner has not mentioned about the pendency of crfminal case against him. The petitioner has not committed any fraud and has not commtttect any mistake with maSa fide intention. This is not a case of suppresto ven and suggestto fafsi. 4) Per contra, Mr. Thakur, iearned Dy. Advocate Genera! appearing for fhe State submits that the petitionar himself cornmitted th® misteke by conceaiing the facts of pendency of criminat case against him before his seiection. The int&ntion of the oetitioner is venf ciaar froni the fact that he had delibsrately conceaied the facte white filling up the verification form, wherein there was a specific requirement of stating She fact asto whefher any criminai case was pending or not. 5) Having heard tearned counsel for ths parties, perused the pteatiings and the documents apoended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner dtd not (III up- the application form properiy and concealed the fact cS pendency of criminal case in column No.12 ofthe verificatfon form. The concealment of facts woutd result into canceiiation of his seiection. Even from perusa! of the order dated 29-1-2003 (Annexure P/3), it appears that excspt for commjssion of offence punishabie under Section 323 of the IPC, rest of the offences are % - eompromised between the complainant and the accused persons. Therefwe, the petitioner cannot be said that he was acquitted from the criminal case and no case was pending against him on the date of filtfng up the veriflcation form. 6) In the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta Vs. Tin Plate Co. of tndia Ltd , the Hon'bte Supreme Court wh'ie dealing with fte questions of suppression- of facts in Customs Act obseroe8 that the suppression of facts envisages a deliberate or conscious omission to state a fact with ths intentton of deriving wrongful gasn. 7) !n the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Ratan Yadav^, the Hon'b'e Supreme Court he!d as under: "12. The object of requiring information in coiumns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certificatton thereafter bv the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate havlng suppressed material information andtor givsng false information cannot ciaim right to eontinue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspecte had the discretion to terminate his sen/ices, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per coiumns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of ttie offence or the resuit of a sriminal case ultimately. The information in the said cotumns was sought with a viev/ to iudge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue In service or not. The High Court, in our view, has faiied to see thte aspect of She matter. !t went wrcmg in saying that the criminai case had been subssauenUv withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was ' (1997) 10 SCC 538 '(2003) 3 SCC 437 lilffiiEim, alleged to have been invoh/ed, wers aiso not of seriousnature...." 8) In ths case of Secretary, DepartmenS of Home Secretary, A.P. and others Vs. B., Chinnam Naidu , refemng the oase of Kendriya V'dyalaya Sangathan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court hefd as undar: "As is noted in Kendriya Vidvaiava Sangathan case the object of requirinn information in various columns like column 12 of the attestation form and declaration thereafter bv the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. When a candidate suporesses material information and/or aives tetse infQrmation, he cannot cSaim any right for appointment or continuance in service. There can bs no dispute to thts position in law." 9) The above stated decislons of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rsferred and foltowed by this Court in the matter of Ram Chandra Sahu Vs. State of C.G. & others . 10) Applying to the weli seffled principles of law as iaid down by the Hon'bSe Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, it is not a case where the petitioner has voluntarily supptied the information of the fact with regard to the pendsncy of the criminai case against him. in ths present case, the petitioner has deiiberatelv concealed the facts as he has made omission in the verification form. ThuS, this is a case of supprresio veri and suggestto folsi. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to appointment/continuation in service. 11) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 25-8-2004 (Annexure P/2) is just and proper and warrants no i[ The petition is accordingiy dismissed. No order asto costs. 12) Consequently, M(W)P.No. 4444/2004 stand disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 3(200y}2SCC746 4 2007(2)c0u245 ^•\'