VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 26th September, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge in WRIT Petition No. 40692 of 2007, has preferred this Special Appeal under Rule 5, Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. Short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that in response to an advertisement dated 23rd July, 2005 for filling of the posts of Constable, writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) offered his candidature for appointment as Constable in the U.P. Police Department. He was selected for appointment and completed the training. However, by order dated 7th August, 2007, he was dismissed from service for filing of false affidavit declaring that no criminal proceeding was ever initiated against him. Appellant challenged the aforesaid order in the writ petition inter alia contending that as he was not charge-sheeted in the case, non-disclosure of the aforesaid fact and the affidavit declaring that no criminal proceeding was ever initiated ought not to have weighed with the authority in terminating his service. This submission did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and in this connection he has observed as follows:- "It appears that after verification of the antecedents of the petitioner by the S.S.P., an enquiry report was submitted on 10.7.2007 according to which, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner being a Case Crime No. 139 of 2001, under Section 324/504 Cr.P.C. In view of the judgment rendered in 2003 (97) FLR SC, Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, and for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed." Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant was not aware of the lodging of the First Information Report and as such he did not disclose the same and filed the affidavit that no criminal case was ever lodged against him. However, he does not dispute that in- fact a criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 139 of 2001 was lodged against him. Non-disclosure of the same is a material concealment of fact and we are of the opinion that the authority did not err in terminating his service and the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any merit in this Special Appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.