101wp5968.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5968 of 2010 (State and anr. vs. Laxman Lahanu Kaluse) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 10/01/2011. Heard Mr.A.S.Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for petitioners. This petition is directed against the order dt. 8.3.2010 whereby the Original application filed by the petitioners against the order dt. 10.7.2009 cancelling selection of the petitioner came to be allowed. It is contended that the respondent failed to give true and correct information in his attestation form as to whether, at the relevant time, the petitioner was prosecuted or otherwise. It is contended that, though the petitioner, at a latter point of time, was acquitted by the competent Criminal Court, however, since the respondent failed to give necessary information, services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated for 101wp5968.10.odt 2 . suppression of material facts in view of the relevant rules. It is contended that, in the instant case, action of cancellation of selection was taken against the respondent on this count. However, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the competent Authority and therefore, present petition. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. We are also aware that the respondent had applied for the post in the Police Department and should have been more careful while submitting the attestation form. It is also mandatory for the applicant/respondent to disclose necessary particulars in the attestation form pertaining to his involvement in the criminal matters. However, in the present case, the situation appears to be different on facts. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the relevant clause of the attestation form, has observed in para 9 of the order thus : “ It would thus be seen that while translating clause 11 (a) in Marathi, the translation of the words “have you ever been prosecuted” is missing. In fact, this was the most material 101wp5968.10.odt 3 . information which was necessary to be acquired. However, this has been conspicuously missing from Marathi translation of clause 11 (a). “ On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it appears that, for want of necessary clause which required the respondent to furnish the said information, it is difficult for us to find fault with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais