IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10319 of 2009 RAM KUMAR, SON OF HAZARI LAL, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- GHANGHELI, P.O.- JAIDPURA, P.S.- TAPPAL, DISTRICT- ALIGARH (U.P.), PRESENTLY RESIDENT C/O- ARVIND MASTER HOUSE NO. D/31, NEAR S.S.PUBLIC SCHOOL, U.P.S.I. DC COLONY, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SIKANDRABAD (BULANDSHAR (U.P.) :-- PETITIONER . Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, (MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS) C.G.O. COMPLEX LODHI ROAD, BLOCK NO. 13, NEW DELHI. 3. D.I.G., CISF, EASTERN ZONE, 19, TELEGRAPH COLONY, KIDWAIPURI, PATNA- 800001 :-- RESPONDENTS. ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. SATISH KR. SINHA, ADVOCATE. FOR THE UNION OF INDIA : KUMAR PRIYA RANJAN, CGC. ==== 4. 19.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. His services have been terminated under orders dated 24.2.2000, Annexure-1 as he had suppressed information about his being an accused in a criminal case while submitting Attestation Form. Later the authorities discovered such suppression after petitioner had completed his training and under the impugned order his services have been terminated for suppressing a relevant information sought for in the Attestation Form. Termination order has also been affirmed in appeal under orders dated 19th October, 2000, Annexure-8 whereafter the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed under orders dated 29.5.2008, Annexure-9 on the ground that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes the position that petitioner had not given information about his being an accused in the criminal case while submitting the Attestation Form as on the date - 2 - of filing the Attestation Form a compromise petition was filed in the criminal case pending against him and as the compromise petition was filed petitioner being a layman was under the impression that he is not an accused. It is also submitted that later the trial proceeded and petitioner acquitted and in appreciation of the aforesaid two facts this Court should set aside termination order as also the appellate order. 4. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission. Petitioner is accused of suppressing vital information which was specifically called for in the Attestation Form. Paragraph-1 of the Attestation Form clearly warns the applicant that furnishing false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form could be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment. 5. In view of the clear warning given in the Attestation Form itself petitioner while submitting the Attestation Form should have informed the authorities about the criminal case and the filing of the compromise petition. As he has chosen to suppress the same the authorities are well within the jurisdiction to terminate the services of the petitioner and I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)