^I ATTISQARi ResDondents 'etition No. 1 SS 2) Neelmani Sharma, aae 2-3 years, S/o. Srinath Sharma, R/o. Civil Line, Ward no.14, Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund. CG/ The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, 'nn \y. The Director Genrai of Poiice (Administratlon) Pollce Head Quarter, Ralpur, District Raipur, nfi he Inspector General of Poiice, Sistrict Raiour, CG. Ths l^:i~-^ L/35?U Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasasnund ^~';. (Writ Petition under Articls 226/227 ofthe Constitution of india) Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Shri Awath Trlpathi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubev, Govt. Advocate for the Siate. r>cfli 'assed oi 6^ -S-2GG?) Bv this petition filed under Artlcle 226/227 of the Constitution of inciia, the peiitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22-2-2008 (Annexure P/5) whereunder the petitioner was found disquaiified in fhe examination heid in the year 2000 for apDointment on the oosi of Constabie on the ground that criminal cases were found psntiing against 'nim. The petitioner fui'ther seeK.a a ciirection to the respondentsteuthorities to grani appointment to him. ^vtjiwvtfMiyasif-ssffu^K- 2) The indisputabie facts, in nutsheii, are that pursuant to the advertisement, ihe petitioner made an application for appointment to the post of Constabie. The petitioner, after having compieted successfui physical test as weii as writtsn test, was InTOrmed vide ietterdated 01-07-2005 (Annsxurs P/2) that his narne has been found in the seiection iist of Constabie (G.D) and he was directed to appear in the Police Head Quarter on 5-7-2006 for further action. On seiection, the petltioner was required to fiiS-up attestation form (Annexure P/3). Aaainst column No.12, the petitioner was asked to submitthe information with rsgard to the facts of his arrest, prosecution, charge-sheet, imoosition of fine, conviction, if anv, in the criminal trial, debarrina bv Pubiic Service Commission in aoDearina in anv of She examinations. Further, whether the petitioner was debarred frorn any University or his educational institution from writina the examination o." whether he was expeiled from the University or any educationai Institute. On 6-7-200E the Detitioner submitSed the information v/hich rsads as under: a.IT. ^ TTwPT 1 " 6T P'NWi'i 'fterT ;[T3TT aTT TIS:T W %ftAi"T •q!."l-i<l MO^ ^S^rr irar &TT, ^T^ y<tcpl 1c)-aT TraT an 'g^f TR ^fTi"T ';)gT IWCTT EPT[ | t^ft ^ 3FHN c5 lcT77 ''^n^'i'c^1^' ^RT 'St^if ^^ ri^^s^i 7raT t' ^r4T ^~^UT TfOT -^- c5 3T1'£?T*? 'n'? ^r^n' T^'^' T[^ t' t^?ft 'sft- '^W ''^n 3TPTTT sT?T ^Nl1$Kr ''lfifflTSJT cfe "qIRT <^ ;?IfN$KT ^ ''ff qfSid ;l?t 'i^isT TOJT f sj^ '•ng't •'^ff', UfiSiT 'B to^ ^ 'rRsi i^TT. ^TT RuhiRia ?re ~^ 'HtiMQ uiHcpT?? W g^ fSfi^] TplT |~] ^Tt ujiTiqi]-^ TfET WT-T T! •3"T?Tf? PF-T y^f"! t| 1999-2001 v 1'TEI ^ 354 cnT *il*1dl 'Syi ?[3TT aTr 1^RIq5T TS^:(a] TTO TTRT ^I?T ? 'I SIIRIEI ^ff[u5 'ST.lT.^. /K.W. 356/1S9 147./2000 309/03 fERN --iil'Mlylii, 'PP'N ft. 25. ^ray 09.01 "Uli-Uqi (;USi|iycp]'(| t;]Cj ^•SJF| ^41. ^^i^H<^ f^0;^ 09.04 ft. 483/2002 33/2003 I^TCT SllflNdTf VI tT^T ^r ^TFncpT, ft°N f^. 09. TlsTWi? .-.. 02.04 f" h' ssi.^si^^sssxsx'fsszsss.assv. ^ST] ETRT 151 1Tq 107/16 0?T ycn<"] 3ft a}T ^iTi 1^5 :!39:1 ?T 'qcpT t] " 3) Thereafter, the petitloner submitted on®more affidavit on 9-12- 2005 (Annexure P/4) with regard to the period from 1999 to 2001 detaiis of which he couid not give at the tlme of filting up the attestation form, exceot that he was exonerated in all the criminai cases. The affidavit to that effect was filed as under: " 2 TI? r^ ~tpR' FH^ c^ Uirijn 31ii)^|U"—TOTq'q^ cT?T fSTTOi 06.07, 2005 ^l ITV TPTTI ^SOQ WP1 5S ^fvrfl ^. i2 ^ •^ TK fa^g' ^v! 'gqiVT aft-; -3^ Ptl; ?r gt;T a?T fS??W IRT aTTI 'RRIH ^H 1999 ^i 2001 w 1ftv, 354. ^T. % % ?pT 'HTHcTT F^TT ift ri^ gTCI loreT TCTT aiT! VK T^, 354 3T, ?, 11 cRi cRJii g-;???^ ,nq- •1099 ^ 2001 TJT gT^ oo? :i3ST 1T? Wft 7!?sf 'iRni w^ <;l''f'S<ti ScRW »TIRi 230/01, ^ RiVT'aS 7iW T[ gr vlMdi]-?, <t aft. naiT S|KI ^T siT'T ;T?t 'gt';i' '", 294, 506 (€1), 323/34 cft •STEfiTiT cBt •no":RT .354 W. ?. f7T. 1$re ferT 5.TT. l3C^T 'R"^?VT ^ TTo:7T ~^'^ ^ ?HTTrt "^Ts^ -?^ $^' t. SfN' '^T ^er TI iadi(; 53IT a.7T. 5^? q^iS' ^' '84 STT^ft WRT ^ ^cFcT 'yqi';"! c!?!' EIT°T 354 "T. % 1'&, 3>T CTHT ^TRsT f^raT Sff. TiatT Mcc\u; Tia.ft ^' 'iT'-l'MI^] c^ gnE'R T^ ^RTCT ^ 'EppT tl" ^ ^' ^ 4) It is an admitted position thai the petitioner was acquitted in ail the cases oendina aaainst him and he has comoie'ie detaiis as required in the attestntion form. The petitioner had also filed the second aiTidavit indicating certain omissions in the attesiation form much before his candidature ror aoDointrnent was eanceiied. 5) Shri Tripathi, iesrned counssl appearing for tne pefitioner submiis tnat this is not s. case ot Ist as tn< petitioner has su&mitted detai's in the attestatlon form and some detaiis whic'n he did not remember at that Doint of.time. virere submi'ited subseauentiv bv affidavit dated 19-12-2005 (Annexure P/4). The pstitioner has not attempted to seek empioyment by makirig faise statement and has not further conceaied any faci which v/as required in the attestation form for any'DurDose. 6) Per confra, iearned counse! appearing for the respondents/Staie would submit that the details must have been aiven In the attestation •form itse'f. The subsequent information by way of affidavit was aiso not compiete ano' the petitioner has further conceaisd some detaiis which were not stated in the impugned ordsr. The pertioner was acquitted not honourably, but by giving benefit of doubt or by compromise. Thus, the petitioner cannot be held as fit for empioyment on the post of Constabie. 7) i have heard iearned counsei Tor the parties, perussd the pieadings anc' documents appendea' fhereto. .'t Is evident that the petjtioner has djsclosed the information wlth regard to ihe chailan, charge-sheet, prosecution, conviction, imposition of penalty, If any, in the attestation form suDDlemented bv the affidavit dated 19-12-2005 (Annexure P/4). 8) The Supreme Court in the case of Commlssioner of Police, Delhi and another Vs. Dhays! Singh , wh.He considering the identica! facts, wherein the petitioner did not inform about pendency of criminai case in the attsstation form in August 1995, but on 15-1'!-1985, he voiuntarily informed the authority concsrnfed about pendency of criminai case, it was held that the inrormation was conveyed vojuniari!y whsre'n he was acauitted before passlng the orderof cancellation of candidature. Ths canceiSation of the candidaiure under the circumstances was without any proper applicatlon of mind and without taking jnto consideration ail relevant materiai. '(i999)lSCC246 f^—^. r' ^•'. / ^^^f^WSgs^: n !n the csse of Kendriya Vidya 'am Ra+an Yada" . tho Sun.rams f.mi" hajd thst ths "h.ioct nf roniiirin'i J ,,,,,.a information in the attestation form and certification thereafter by the oandidate was to ascertain and verify the charactsr and antscedents of * the respondent as on the date of filiing and attestation of the form to judge his suitabllity to continue in sen/ice. Suppression of materia! information and making a faise statemeni has a ciear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondsnt in relatio" to his continuance in sen/ic®. This was a cass where the canciidate has not informed the authority voluntariiv removina the error committsd bv the candidate in ths attestation form. 10) The Supreme Court in the case of B.R. Chowdhury Vs. india Corpn. Ltd. and others i'eiying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Deihi and another Vs. Dhaval Singh (Supra), held that the candidate is bound by his own arfjdavit and the mentioned memorandum of aareement This was aSso noi a case whsre the candidats voluntariiy informed the authori'nes curing the error cornmitted In the atfestation form. s 11} In 'the case of Secrets and others Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu held that the object of requir'ns information in attestation form and deciaration Shereafter by 'the candidate is to ascertain and verirv the character and antecsdents io judge his suitabiiity to enter into or continue in service. Vtfhen a candidate suDpresses material information and/or aives faise information, he cannot ciaim any right for appointment or continuance in service. . ~ •• !'2003) 3 SCC 437 -'(2004) 2 SCC 177 4 (2005) 2 SCC 746 12) Appiying vi'ell settled principles of !aw to the facts of the present case, it appears that the respondent no.4 teuthority whlle passing the order dated 13-3-2006 has not applied his mind properiy. The respondent No.4 has gone jnto the naturs of the offence and nature of the acauittal. The resoondents have stated in their return that there were total fivs o'fences rsoistered aaainst hini a'oa't from the preventive action and the petit'oner has submitied oniy four cases. The resuits indicated in the return of the respondents cteariy 90 to show that in aS' th®cases even accprding to the respondents, that the petitioner was acauittea of ths offences and in one case the matter v/as compi'ornised. The respondent No.4/authority ought to have appiied h's mind to the aspect of the matter with regard to the character of the petitioner as to whether he is a orooer oerson ror ser./ice in the Poiice Deoariment and whether hs is a desirable oerson to be aDpointed in Governmenf service is not a subject matter of adjudjcation. it is true that denial of aopointment to a seiscled candidate has to be governed bv the basic principles of seroice iaw and by statutory provisions, if any, though he has no right to be appointed. The oniy issue in the present case is in relation to supprsssion of fscts and materiai. 13) In view of the Toregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 22-2-2006 (Annexure P/5) is quashed and the respondents are directed to consldert'ne atiestation form and affidavit dated S-12-2005 (Annexure P/4) fjied by the petitioner afresh. appjving their minds to the susro mentioned in the column No.12 of the atiestation form. Th®petition is accordingly ailowed to the above extent. No order s.s to costs. Raiu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1