Bala Krishna Narayana, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harish Chandra Dubey, learned counsel for Union of India.
(2.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2008 passed in Misc. Writ Petition No. 23114 of 1999 (Sandeep Kumar Singh v. Union of India and others) passed by learned Single Judge, order of termination dated 11.02.1994 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 20.03.1994 passed by respondent no.5. In pursuance to a selection proceeding initiated for selection and appointment on the post of constable in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF'), the appellant/petitioner was granted appointment vide appointment letter dated 23.04.1992.
(3.) Before appointment on the post of constable, the petitioner was given two verification forms for verification of the character and antecedents. In the verification form, there were certain columns requiring to furnish information in regard to the pendency of criminal case/prosecution/arrest/detention/fine/conviction/punishment etc. The petitioner in one of the verification form marked 'Yes' against the column requiring to furnish information in regard to the criminal case and in the second verification form which was similar, the petitioner has ignored to mark the column as 'Yes'. The verification form also contained the recital that in case the candidate marks 'Yes' then he has to furnish full particulars of the case whether it is pending or has been decided or whether he has been prosecuted along with the details of the case crime numbers. In the verification form, the appellant has not disclosed full particulars although he has marked 'Yes' in one of the verification form. On coming to know about the pendency of criminal case against the appellant, the respondents served a show cause notice dated 11.01.1994 calling upon the appellant that while submitting the verification form, information in regard to the pendency of criminal case has been concealed and due to concealment of material facts, why proceedings of dismissal from service may not be initiated against you. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.01.1994. ;