ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order Ex. 6, dated, 11th May, 1983, whereby his services were terminated.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed after due selection by the respondents. Firstly an offer was sent to him and he accepted the same and thereafter appointment order dated 15th December, 1982 Ex. 2 was issued appointing the petitioner as Line Patrol Man. Thereafter papers were sent for verification to the place of his residence i.e. to the District Magistrate, Pali and it was found that the petitioner was convicted by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali Under Section 186 IPC and fined to tune of Rs. 100/ -. When this fact came to the notice of the respondents, they issued notice to the petitioner on 22nd March, 1983 asking him whether he was ever convicted Under Section 186 IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/ - was imposed or not. This fact was deliberately concealed by the petitioner, therefore by this notice the petitioner was called upon to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter the services of the petitioner was dispsnsed with and a cheque of Rs. 972.17 was sent vide Ex. 6. The present writ petition is directed against this order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this punishment was a very minor in nature and it does not involve any moral turpitude, therefore the order of termination of the petitioner's services is illegal and deserves to be quashed. As against this Mr. Mridul, appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is seriously guilty of concealing important fact of his conviction and he has misled the employer by not disclosing the true and correct facts about his part career, thereby he has obtained appointment by misleading the employer and he has no right to invoke the extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this court. In this connection he has relied on the case of Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Anr. : (1985)ILLJ527SC . It is a fact that at the time when the petitioner was asked to fill in declaration form and particularly column 11, against which petitioner marked 'No'. Column 11 of the declaration form reads as under : 11. Have you ever been prosecuted, kept under detention, or bound down fined convicted by a court of law of any offence or debassed or disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examinations/election offence ? Is any case pending against in you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form. It was clearly stated in column 11 that whether he was ever prosecuted or convicted or fined by a court of law or not. As a matter of fact when this fact was asked, it was bounden duty of the petitioner to have disclosed, correct facts in his declaration but he has failed to do so and deliberately mis -led the employer of this fact. In this connection 1 would like to refer the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal Vaghaji Bhai Patel (supra), which reads as under: However since the petitioner is shown to be guilty of suppression of a material fact which would weigh with any employer in giving him employment, the case of the petitioner does not merit consideration Under Article 136 and his SLP must therefore fail. Thus, in this view of the matter I am not imclined to interfere in the writ petition as the petitioner deliberately witheld this information and obtained the appointment.
(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.;