1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ORDER. Bhupendra Singh vs. The Union of India Purawat & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1867/05 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: 24th January ,2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. P.S. Bhati for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur,Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India. ... BY THE COURT In response to an advertisement for appointment on the post of Constable, applications were invited by the respondents wherein the petitioner applied for the job and he succeeded in the written examination and the petitioner was called for medical examination, where also the petitioner succeeded and thereafter, the petitioner was given appointment vide order No. M/o May, 2004 (Annex.1). Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training at Allahabad and was when taking training, he received notice terminating his services under sub-rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 16 and Note 2 below Appendix-F of CRPF Rules, 1955. The 2 petitioner is, therefore, aggrieved against the said order of January,2005 (Annex.2), hence preferred this writ petition. Reply has been filed by the respondents and the facts are not in dispute that the petitioner applied for the job of Constable in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents but the petitioner suppressed the important and material fact which he was bound to disclose that he faced criminal cases in past. According to the respondents, the fact of suppressing of the petitioner in criminal cases in past itself was sufficient ground for termination of services of the petitioner under sub-rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1965. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was absolutely inadvertent mistake of the petitioner and there was no ill- motive of the petitioner as the petitioner was involved in criminal cases but that was due to family dispute only and in said criminal cases, the petitioner was acquitted long before he submitted the form for the post in question. The offences are not relating to any moral turpitude and because of this inadvertent mistake, the petitioner cannot be punished to the extent of removal from service. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and anr. vs. Dhaval Singh ( (1999) 1 SCC 246). In said case, a candidate for appointment as Constable, put cross-mark in the column in which he was required to give information about pendency of criminal 3 case, if any, against him. Said candidate submitted verification/attestation form in the month of August, 1995 but on 15.11.1995, he voluntarily informed the authority concerned about the criminal case against him. His candidature was cancelled on 20.11.1995 and ultimately he was acquitted on 8.12.1995 in the criminal case. The Hon'ble Apex Court held on facts that the concerned authority did not apply its mind to the intimation given by the appellant on 15.11.1995 before cancelling appointment and set side the cancellation of appointment. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court delivered in the case of Dharam Pal Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors. ( RLW 2000(2) Raj. 815) and the recent Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. Union of India & ors. ( 2007(3) RLW 2423). The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam (supra), while interpreting sub-rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 1965, clearly held that where the candidate suppressed the fact that he was prosecuted on a criminal charge, such suppression is an index of his character as not suitable for appointment and ultimate result of the case is not material. The Division Bench of this Court held that suppression would by itself disentitle the candidate from being appointed in service. In view of the detail discussion, as given in the judgment of Radhey Shyam (supra), which has been delivered after following the 4 judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan vs. Ram Ratan Yadav ( (2003) 3 SCC 437) and Secretary Department of Home Secretary, A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu ( (2005)2 SCC 746), I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondent terminating the services of the petitioner for non-disclosure of material fact about past criminal cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince this Court that direction may be issued to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner as the Rules provides that the respondents itself can re-consider the termination of service of the employee after passing of the termination order but in view of the view taken by the Full Bench and Division Bench of this Court in the cases referred above, I do not find any reason to issue such direction when the petitioner is admittedly guilty of suppressing the important material facts. Hence the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed being having no merit. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.