IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4515 of 2010 1. RAJESH RANJAN KUMAR @ SHASHI RANJAN SHARMA S/O SRI CHANDESHWAR PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- MUSTAFAPUR, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE NEW DELHI 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RANGE-II AJMER 4. COMMANDANT 67 BN CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, POLO GROUND, SHILONG, MEGHALAYA 5. COMMANDANT, RECRUITMENT CELL MOKAMAGHAT, CT/GD (MALE), BIHAR ----------- 02/ 25.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2010, Annexure-7, whereunder his request to reconsider the order of termination of probation dated 18.2.2009, Annexure-4 has been rejected ignoring the finding of acquittal recorded under judgment dated 23.5.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 726 of 2008, appertaining to Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 174 of 2006 registered for the offence under Sections 304B, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of the impugned order dated 9.2.2010, Annexure-7, it would appear that the learned Inspector General, who passed the said order did not even whisper about the finding of acquittal recorded under judgment dated 23.5.2009, Annexure-5 and thereby the impugned office order dated 9.2.2010, Annexure-7 2 should be set aside for failure of the authorities to consider the finding of acquittal. 4. I regret not to accept such submission. Probation of the petitioner in the Force was terminated on the ground that while joining the Force, petitioner withheld information about his implication in the aforesaid Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 174 of 2006, as such, his subsequent acquittal in the said case cannot be a ground for condoning the suppression of information about his being accused in the said case from the authorities at the time of his entry in the Force and in appreciation of such fact, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 9.2.2010, Annexure-7. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)