KRISHAN KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper -book.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order (An -nexure P -9) shows that the petitioner was convicted of offences under Sections 323/325/34 I.P.C. Although she had been selected on the post of Lady Constable, she was denied the appointment on the ground of adverse character verification report. On her selection, she was required to submit a certificate giving all the details containing inter alia the details as to whether any criminal case was pending against her. She was also required to state as to whether she had been convicted or fined by a Court of criminal jurisdiction. She furnished false information under her signatures and concealed the fact that she stood convicted of criminal offences at the time when she filled in the form. Police record was verified from Police Station and it was only then discovered that she had been convicted by the trial Court at the time when she filled in the form on 12.9.2002. The date of her conviction was 24.4.2002. So it becomes apparent that the petitioner deliberately furnished false information at the time of filling the form. Merely because the petitioner had ultimately been acquitted on account of the compounding of offences, would not be a justification to condone the dishonest behaviour exhibited by the petitioner. Furthermore, it is a settled proposition of law that any claim based on falsehood is liable to be rejected by the Courts at the thresh -hold. This view of ours rests on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs & Ors. (1995 -1) 109 P.L.R. 293 (S.C.) wherein it has been observed as under : -

(3.) IN view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Sd/ - M.M. Aggarwal, J. - Petition dismissed.