Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) This Special Appeal challenges the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37715 of 2005, Shailesh Bhushan Tripathi versus Union of India and others, whereby the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed.
(3.) The relevant findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment reads thus: - - "Clause 12 of the verification form is relevant for our purposes and reads as follows: "12. Have your ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted, by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution? Reference may also be had to Clauses 1 and 2 of the form, which read as follows: "1. The furnishing of false information or suppressing of any factual information in the Verification Roll would be a disqualification and is likely to render candidate unfit for employment under the Government. 2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc., subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the authority to whom the Verification Roll has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information." From a reading of the aforesaid clauses it is apparently clear that the candidate was required to disclose not only his arrest etc. but also the cases wherein he had been prosecuted, whatsoever the outcome of the prosecution had been. Admittedly, the petitioner has been prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 90 of 1991 much prior to the filing of the form. Even assuming that the petitioner had been served with a charge sheet in Case Crime No. 162 of 1998 only in the year 2002, in view of Clause 2 of the form he was immediately required to inform the authority concerned qua his prosecution, which he has admittedly failed to do so. In view of the aforesaid fact admitted on record, the authorities are legally justified in canceling the appointment of the petitioner in terms of Clauses 1 and 2 of the form, referred to above. There is no illegality in the order impugned. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.";