- (1.) Heard Shri Lalit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents. The petitioner - Deo Pratap Singh, whose appointment as constable has been cancelled by the impugned order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura dated 8.8.2007, challenges the same mainly on the ground that he was having no knowledge of the criminal case being registered against him at the time of filing of the application form. This fact virtually stands admitted from the record including the counter-affidavit filed by the State, but even then his services have been terminated arbitrarily and illegally in gross violation of the Government Order dated 28.4.1958. His further submission is that the charge-sheet was initially submitted against him, but no re-investigation it was found that his name was wrongly included and that the story set up against him was not true. Therefore, for non-mentioning of the criminal case, which was allegedly pending on that date, would not be sufficient to terminate his services.
(2.) It appears that in pursuance of the advertisement issued between some time between 2004-04 (as clear date has not been given), the petitioner applied for being appointed as constable. The petitioner was required to disclose in the application form whether any criminal case was registered/pending against him. He mentioned that no such case was pending against him. He also furnished an affidavit to that effect, as required. The petitioner was selected and appointed as constable in and was posted at Mathura. The selection so made on the post of constable was scrutinized and reviewed wherein it was found that the petitioner had concealed the fact about the registration and pendency of the aforesaid criminal case lodged against him as case crime No. 70 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 140, 323, 427, 307, 504 IPC and Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. On the basis of the said report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura being satisfied that it was a case of suppression of material fact and giving wrong declaration in the application form supported by the affidavit, has cancelled his appointment.
(3.) The petitioner has pleaded that he was not aware about the registration of such criminal case when he filed the application in pursuance of an advertisement issued. As a matter of fact on 7.2.2005 an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. was moved by Bachchu Singh in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra for registration of FIR against 14 persons including the petitioner on the allegation that all the accused persons (14 in numbers) in order to kill the complainant and others fired upon them, but they received no injury. The learned Magistrate on 26.2.2005 ordered for registration of FIR and investigate the same. In pursuance of the order dated 26.2.2005 passed by the learned Magistrate an FIR was lodged against 14 persons on 13.3.2005.;