- (1.) The appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12 February 2015 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant for challenging the validity of an order dated 17 August 2007 terminating his services as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) on the ground of suppression of material facts.
(2.) A criminal case was registered against the appellant in 2004 under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj. The criminal case was registered as Case Crime No.136 of 2004 and a charge sheet was submitted on 10 August 2004. An advertisement was issued for the recruitment of Constables to the PAC on 2 May 2006. In response to the advertisement, the appellant applied for selection. In the affidavit, which the appellant filed in support of his application, he stated that there was no criminal case pending against him; there was no criminal case against him in the past (Item no.3) and that no criminal case was pending against him before any Court (Item no.7). The appellant stated that if any part of his declaration was found to be incorrect or if there was a suppression of material facts, his selection would be liable to be cancelled without notice and that he would be terminated from service. The appellant was selected on 28 August 2006. On 31 August 2006, the appellant was granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. On 17 August 2007, an order of termination was passed by the Commandant of the 11 Battalion in the PAC at Sitapur, terminating the selection of the appellant on the ground that he had made a false disclosure that no criminal case was pending against him when he applied for selection. On the contrary, it was found on the basis of a report submitted on 17 July 2007 by the Police Station concerned that a criminal case had been registered against the appellant and that the appellant was charge sheeted on 10 August 2004. The appellant filed a writ petition to challenge his termination from service.
(3.) The learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 12 February 2015 held that the statements made by the appellant on oath were false to his knowledge and it was not the case of the appellant that he was unaware of the pendency of a criminal case or that he had not been put to notice by the Court concerned upon the submission of the charge sheet. The learned Single Judge emphasized that when he made the declaration, the appellant knew of the criminal case which was lodged against him and that he was acquitted in the criminal case only on 27 August 2007. The conclusion which has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge is as follows: "This Court is of the opinion that the cancellation of appointment/selection on account of suppression of material fact or deliberate misstatement is liable to be seriously viewed. A deliberate concealment or omission of vital information cannot clothe the selectee with equitable considerations. A deliberate misstatement or omission of vital information made knowingly cannot fault the decision taken by the appointing Authority to annul the selection/appointment. The suppression of material information clearly speaks about the character and the moral fibre of the selectee. Suppression of pendency of a criminal case, if it be a deliberate omission, would clearly justify the action of the employer in cancelling the selection. This aspect assumes additional importance in case the selectee/appointee is seeking entry to a uniformed and disciplined force. A member of a disciplined force is liable to be judged on a higher pedestal. Viewed in light of the above this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No. 3 was clearly justified in passing the impugned order.";