SOHAN LAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not in dispute that after he was selected as a constable in CRPF, petitioner was required to fill up a verification roll, which petitioner did somewhere in the month of August 1997. IT is also not in dispute that amongst other information, vide Column 12A, the petitioner was required to inform whether he was ever arrested, prosecuted or convicted by a Court of Law for having committed any offence. The proforma lists the questions in Hindi as also English. Petitioner responded to the column in Hindi by filling up 'Nahi (No)'. This admittedly was incorrect. Pursuant to an FIR registered in the year 1991, petitioner was facing trial for offences punishable under Section 147, 447, 427 IPC.

(2.) WHEN this fact surfaced during police verification, services of the petitioner were terminated when he was still on probation.

(3.) THE latter decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has not noticed the earlier decision.