- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner appeared in different phases for the recruit ment of Provincial Armed Constabulary, ( here in after called as the P. A. C.) for the period 18-1-96 to 23-3-1996 and was declared successful and in pursuance of his selection, he has joined on 6-12-96 and reported for training, which was to be commenced from 10-12-96. However, the ser vices of the petitioner has been terminated by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 10-1-97, contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE reason for terminating the ser vices of the petitioner has been given in the impugned order that while filling up the required forms during the process of selec tion, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 29-3-96 wherein he was affirmed that in his personal knowledge no criminal case has ever been registered against him nor he was ever been challaned by the police in any case, but the respondents while verifying the antecedent of the petitioner came to know that the petitioner had been involved in Crime case No. 56/94, under Section 323/504/506, I. P. C. read with Section 3 (1) and Section 10 of Atrocities on S. C. and S. T. Act and the case remained pending even subsequent to filing of that affidavit on 29-3-96 and the case was concluded vide order dated 4-5-96 of the learned Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in sessions trial No. 223/95, con tained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition. As the petitioner had given a false affidavit his service have been terminated. Heard Shri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sabhajeet Yadav learned Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner had been selected and become the member of the armed force, his services were riot liable to be terminated without giving him opportunity of hearing and without holding enquiry against him. In support of his case learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others, AIR 1990 SC 307 and Shrawan Kumar Jha and others v. Ram Sewak and others, AIR 1991 SC 309, wherein the Apex Court had ob served that appointments cannot be can celled by the Government without affording prior opportunity of hearing. In both these cases the appointments had been cancelled on the ground that the appointments had been made by the authority which had no competent to make the said appointments.
(3.) FURTHER reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9-5-89 passed in writ petition No. 18303 of 1988 Vinod Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U. P. and others, in which identical facts and circumstances, this Court directed the authorities to wait till the conclusion of the criminal trial which was pending against the selected and as the selected in that case has been acquitted by the criminal court, he was asked to produce the judgment of the trial Court before the respondents there inn. However, that case was different as it does not appear from the said judgment that the selected there in has suppressed the material information at the time of selec tion or he has made a false representation. As the instant case is clear cut case of mis representation of fraud, I am of the con sidered opinion that none of the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable in the instant case.;