RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the petitioner was offered appointment as a Head Constable by CISF, admittedly he was required to fill up a verification roll in which he was required to respond: Whether he was ever prosecuted or was he ever arrested or kept under detention or convicted by a Court of Law for any offence?

(2.) FILLING up the verification roll on 15.3.1996, petitioner responded in the negative to all the 4 columns wherein aforesaid information was sought, which information given by the petitioner is admittedly false inasmuch as the petitioner admits that he was an accused in an FIR registered against him and others on 19.9.1995 for offences punishable under the Arms Act as also various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) HAVING admitted that the petitioner did not make a complete and a truthful disclosure of his past, and virtually conceding that the information sought was relevant for the character of the petitioner, we see no scope for any argument as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.