'^< 'Y7~ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DIVLSJONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI H.L DATTU, CJ. & HON'BLE SHR! D.R. DESHSVEUKH, J. Writ ADpea! No.76 of 2007 APPELLANT (Petitjoner) RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. Sandeep Kumar Mishra S/o Mahesh Kumar Mishra, aged about 23 years, Occupation Constabie, PresentSy resident of Bodari, Chakarbhata, Biiaspur, District Bitaspur C.G. Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Seoretap/ Home Affajrs Depan.ment D.K.S. Bhawan, RaipurC.G. The Director Generai of Pollce, Police Head Quarter, Raipur C.G. The Additional Director General of Poiice, Poiice Head Quarter Raipur, C.G. The Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Foroe, Sakri, Bilaspur, District Bltaspur C.G. Appeai under Section 2(1) of the Hiah Court of C.G. Appea! to D.B. Act. 2006 read with Ruie 157 H0)(a) of Hiah Court ofChhattisaarh Ruies. 2005. Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the appeilant Shri N.K. Agrawal, Dy. A.G. for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11" April,2007) The . foilowing orai order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, CJ. This appeai arises out of an order passed by the ieamed Single Judge In W.P. No. 4720 of 2004, dated 02-02-2007. (2) Facts in brief are : The petitioner was seiected and appointed as Constable under the 4th respondent By order dated 23-09-2004, the 4th respondent has terminated the sep^ices of the petitioner soiely on the ground that whiie filing hi8 application for appointment to the post of constable he had suppressed material facts. (3) Learned Single Judge after taking note of catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court has come to the conciuslon that the appeliant while fiijng the applicatlon was expected to give correct and appropriate information about his suitabillty for appointment to the post of Constable. in the instant case, though the petitioner w-as charge-sheeted before the jurisdictiona! Maglstrate, that information was not furnished by the petltioner while fliing the appiication for the post of Constable. In the applicatlon form itself there is a column which would authorize the employer to terminate the sen/ices of the applicant/appointee sfthe information furnished by him is found to be incorrect on a iater date. Invoking that ciause, the employer has terminated the se<rvices of the appeliant Learned Single Judge after notidng al! these aspects of the matter has come to the conclusion that the order of termination passed by the 4 respondent is justiciabie. Having gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, v^/e do not think that the learned Single Judge has committed any error whatsoever whsch wouid cail for our interference in this appea!. Therefore, the appeai requires to be rejected and it is rejeoted. Ordered accordingly. l Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 1