Willful suppression of material information concerning criminal antecedents during recruitment for public employment, particularly in a disciplined force, constitutes a valid ground for termination, as it undermines the integrity of the selection process and public trust, notwithstanding any subsequent acquittal of the candidate.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. H. L. Maurya, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present petition has assailed an order dated 19-11-2012, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF Khatkhati, Assam, terminating the services of the petitioner invoking the provisions of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the Force) on 19-03-2012, as a Constable (General Duty), and was allotted to the 138^th Battalion of the Force, Assam. While undergoing training at ATC, Rangareddy, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner was brought to the Group Centre, CRPF Khatkhati, Assam, and thereafter, vide the order dated 19-11-2012, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated.

It is projected that the petitioner was not informed as to the reasons behind issuance of the said order dated 19-11-2012. The petitioner further projects that, basing on an RTI reply received in the matter on behalf of the petitioner, it was disclosed that the petitioner services was terminated as he was, during the verification of his antecedents, carried out after his enrolment in the Force, found to be involved in 2 (two) criminal cases. The petitioner has further projected that he had, while submitting his Verification Roll, on account of a misunderstanding arising in the matter, had answered in negative against the questions put, therein, as to whether the petitioner was involved in any criminal case. He submits that the said Verification Roll on being verified by the concerned authorities and it having come to light that there were criminal cases pending against the petitioner, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide the said order dated 19-11-2012. It is submitted that the appeals and revisions preferred by and on behalf of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the Appellate as well as the Revisional authority, thereby affirming the termination of services as affected in case of the petitioner.

Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

4. Mr. H. L. Maurya, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has at the outset submitted that at the time of institution of the 2 (two) criminal cases against the petitioner, he was a minor and accordingly was not in a position to appreciate the significance of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is on account of such ignorance that the petitioner, while filling up his Verification Roll had answered in negative with regard to the question about pendency of any criminal case against him. It is submitted that one of the 2 (two) criminal cases pending against the petitioner had resulted in his acquittal by the Trial Court prior to the enrolment of the petitioner in the Force, whereas, the other criminal case had also resulted in an acquittal of the petitioner, however, after he had joined his services.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a layman and only a matriculat