PANWAR, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to quash the impugned order Annex. 5 dated 16. 5. 1998 and reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and relief.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to instant writ petition are that in response to the advertisement issued by the respondents, petitioner, holding the requisite qualification, applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher and faced interview before the Selection Committee. He was appointed and posted at the Government Upper Primary School, Bida. Ultimately, vide impugned order Annex. 5 dated 16. 5. 1998, his services stood terminated without any notice or opportunity of hearing on the ground that the Character Verification was not proper and genuine and there is concealment of material fact in column No. 15 of the Character Verification Form. Hence this writ petition. In reply, respondents have come with the case that in column No. 15 of the Character Verification Form, petitioner has used the words "not Applicable" but at the time of applying for the post in question, one criminal case under Section 420, 467 and 471 IPC was pending against him; petitioner had joined the duties in a hurried manner though it was stipulated that character verification was an essential condition precedent for joining the duty; petitioner himself had avoided the service of impugned termination order; he is guilty of suppression of material fact and as such he is not entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition. In rejoinder-affidavit, it has been stated by the petitioner that against column No. 15, petitioner had tick-marked the sing of "yes" and did not use the words "not applicable" as asserted by the respondents; the criminal case was falsely instituted against him due to political rivalry with his father and ultimately he was discharged in the criminal case vide order dated 8. 12. 1998 by the learned ACJM for want of sufficient evidence; and he has no connection with political or criminal activities. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On the basis of the averments made by the learned counsel for the parties, in the instant case, the following questions arise for consideration and decision:- (i) Whether the fact that at the time of filling of Form, pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner is a material fact, the suppression of which would entitle the respondents to dismiss him from defence service on the ground? (ii) whether the ultimate discharge of the petitioner would condone or wash out the consequences of suppression of the fact that he was prosecuted and tried? (iii) Whether the suppression of the material fact would not be itself disentitle the petitioner to remain in service?
(3.) IT is difficult to say that information which was required from the petitioner in Column No. 15 of the Character Certificate was in respect of only those offences which were related to moral turpitude. Suitability for a post has several dimensions. Even if an offence is not related to moral turpitude, the motive behind commission of the offence, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the manner of commission of the offence, the consequences arising from commission of the offence, may be relevant for the purpose of assessing the suitability of the candidate for a post. The fact that the petitioner was prosecuted in a criminal trial is a material fact, suppression whereof, when enquired about, would entitle the employer to inflict penalty in accordance with law. The petitioner was ultimately discharge by the criminal court, which does not obliterate the fact of pendency of criminal case in the Court. The suppression of such material fact by itself disentitles the petitioner to remain in services. All those persons who desire employment under the State must, therefore, be deemed to be under a legal duty to speak the truth to the employer not only while applying for the post but also when appearing in the written examination or during the interview or at any time thereafter. IT is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a person who is desirous to be appointed in Government Service, must consider it his duty to respond and to answer truly without committing "suppressio veri" and "suggestio falsi" while dealing with the employer or with the subjects. I am fortified by view by the judgment of Larger Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh & 4 Others vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1 ). In that case, a Larger Bench of this Court observed that the plain language of rule 15 and the consequences of suppression of information read with the Circular which says that willful suppression of information adverse to candidate comes within the purview of moral turpitude and as such it cannot be said that information sought in Column No. 17 of the application form is not material. The Court further held as under:- " In this view, suppression of material information or furnishing it wrongly in column No. 17 of the form is a vital factor, which goes against the candidate. rule 15 of the Rules empowers the authorities to deny appointment or debar such candidate for admission to any examination or appearance at any interview either permanently or for specified period. A careful reading of rule 15 shows that suppressing material information is itself sufficient to deny employment without anything more; in other words, it is not required that suppression of material should be deliberate or willful. Further, by the combined reading of Rules 13, 15 and the Circular dated 29. 4. 1995, there can be no doubt that appointment could be denied on the ground of suppression of material information, which was otherwise required for judging the suitability and desirability of a candidate for direct recruitment in the police department. The information relating to involvement of a candidate in criminal case is specifically sought in column No. 17 of the application form. If it is not furnished, the candidate takes the consequences of denial of appointment to him. " The law laid down by the larger Bench of this Court squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. Effect of Acquittal in criminal case: ;