(1.) This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against an order dated 27.10.2010 passed by learned writ Court in Writ Petition No. 810/10(s) whereby writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed. The fact necessary for the disposal of this appeal He in a narrow compass. The appellant was appointed on the post of Jal Wahak in June, 2008 under the employment of the respondents. His services were temporary in nature and were governed by Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (in short CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. At the time of appointment, the appellant was directed to fill up the verification form in Form No. 25 in which it was specifically directed to submit information as to whether he was ever prosecuted or any criminal case was registered against him. It would be relevant to quote the information which was sought from the appellant, which reads thus :
(2.) When the respondents were served with the notice of writ petition; return was filed by them and the stand of the respondents in the return is that the services of the appellant were terminated under rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. The further stand of the respondents is that appellant himself submitted information that on being inquired by him, he came to know that some criminal case is pending against him which was not in his knowledge earlier, but the said information which he supplied was incorrect and totally false. The further stand which has been taken in para 3 of the return by the respondents is that on being inquired from the Superintendent of Police Morena, it was informed that a criminal case is pending against the appellant under sections 323, 294, 324, 506B and 34 of IPC. The criminal case was registered against the appellant by his alias name Bunti because his popular name is Bunti in the village. On the aforesaid premised stand taken by the respondents, it was stated in the return that because deliberately the appellant submitted incorrect information in regard to pendency of the criminal case, therefore, his services have been rightly terminated.
(3.) The learned writ Court by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition. In this manner, this writ appeal has been filed assailing the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court.