Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order impugned dated 27.10.2007 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition), passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and order dated 11.09.2007, passed by Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, as well as the order dated 11.09.2007, passed by the State Government. Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and to pay him salary regularly along with arrears.
(2.) The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that petitioner on the basis of applications invited by the respondents for the post of Constable in Civil Police made an application along with various other persons and was considered for the same. The physical test was held in the month of October, 2006 and ultimately the petitioner cleared in the physical test and was permitted to appear in the written examination, which was held on 05.11.2006. The persons who qualified in the written examination were called for interview which was held in the month of November 2006. The selected candidates were directed to appear in the medical examination after which the final select list was declared and ultimately they were sent for training. At the time of consideration of the claim of the petitioner, a declaration form in the nature of affidavit as well as various information was to be given by the petitioner regarding his conduct and involvement in any criminal or civil case, if any. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted the declaration form to the authority concerned. It appears that the declaration made by the applicant was sent for verification and ultimately an order dated 27.10.2007 was passed by the respondents terminating the appointment/services of the petitioner on the ground that while giving the affidavit, the petitioner has concealed the fact regarding involvement in criminal case under Ss. 147, 323, 336 I.P.C., which was pending in the court and on that basis though the petitioner has been acquitted by the court upon the charges mentioned above, but it was treated to be concealment of fact at the time of filling the form, therefore, the services of the petitioner has been terminated.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was acquitted by the competent court vide its order dated 04.01.2007, therefore, it cannot be treated to be concealment. In case the petitioner could have been convicted by the criminal court, then this fact can be taken into consideration by the authority concerned that the petitioner for the purpose of obtaining employment has concealed this fact and has not declared regarding the involvement of the criminal case. Further submission has been made that in case an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner, he would have been in a position to submit before the authority that it cannot be treated to be concealment for the purpose of obtaining employment.;