PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Born in a village on 7.6.1985, at the young age of 16 years, the petitioner, his brother Sunil and father Palturam were named as accused for having committed an offence punishable under Section 452/323/504/506 IPC, when the wife of the younger brother of his father lodged a complaint with the police that Palturam and his two sons i.e. Sunil and the petitioner had barged into her house, abused her and threaten to kill her family members and that her son Kiran Kumar was beaten with an iron rod.

2. Unfortunately for the petitioner his lawyer seems to be ignorant of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2000 and took no defence of the petitioner being a juvenile. Trial continued. Vide judgment and order dated 18.7.2003, the petitioner, his father and brother were acquitted. It is not that the witnesses turned hostile. The Court did not believe the prosecution witnesses.

3. A perusal of the decision rendered by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Roorkee has traces of the petitioner, his father and his brother being ensnared in the clutches of the law; by exaggerating a trivial family feud. We say so for the reason the family members who had deposed against the accused were not believed. The decision shows that exaggerated versions and contradictions were being stated before the Court.

4. Be that as it may that is not the issue. The issue is of the petitioner seeking employment as a Constable with ITBP. He was required to fill-up a verification role and replied in the negative pertaining to column No.12(a) and 12(b) of the verification role wherein information sought was as under:

a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence, or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service commission from appearing at its examination/selections or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other educational authority/Institution?

(b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law/University or any other educational authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll?

If the answer to (a) or (b) is ‘Yes’, full particulars of the cases, arrest, detention, fine, conviction, sentence etc. and the nature of the case pending in the court/University/educational authority etc. at the time of filling of this form should be given.”

5. The form was filled-up on a date which is not clearly emerging, but it was a date in the month of July 2009.

6. What has happened is obvious. Since the petitioner answered ‘No’ against the information sought vide Column No.12(a) and for the reason he was prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under Section 452/323/504/506 IPC, notwithstanding his being acquitted at the criminal trial, the department has taken a view that the petitioner is guilty of furnishing false information to hide his past and this has entailed the action of the respondents in terminating the employment of the petitioner.

7. A perusal of the information sought vide column No.12(a) would reveal that under one question multifarious information has been sought and the complex one question can be split into following questions:

(i) Have you been arrested for any offence?

(ii) Have you been prosecuted for having committed any offence?

(iii) Have you been detained, bound down or fined by a court of law for having committed an offence?

(iv) Have you been convicted by a court of law for having committed an offence?

(v) Have you been debarred/disqualified by any Public Service commission from appearing at its examination/selection?

(vi) Have you been debarred from taking any examination by any university or an educational Institution?

(vii) Have you been rusticated by any University or any educational Institution?

8. Suffice would it be to state that the petitioner was obliged to respond by informing that he had been arrested as also prosecuted by a court of law f