B.S.CHAUHAN
Ratan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
(2). The factual gamut of the case reveals that at the time of entering into service the petitioner was asked to fill up the form which contained in clause for furnishing information specifically whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case or not. The petitioner replied in no. On the basis of the said form the petitioners candidature was considered and he was enrolled in B.S.F. a disciplined force. On verification from the Collector, Jodhpur, it came to the knowledge of the respondents that the petitioner had been involved in a criminal case and after getting this report a show cause notice was issued to him and after considering his reply he was discharged from service vide order dated 31st March 1994 contained in Ann.4 to this writ petition. Hence this petition.
(3). The petitioner was specifically asked as what was the reason for furnishing the false information at that time to seeking appointment when he applied for the service on 7th August 1993 as the petitioner stood convicted vide judgment and order
3. U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee vs. B. Sheetal Nandwani (AIR 1991 SC 908)
4. Krishna Yadav vs. State of Harayana (AIR 1994 SC 2166)
5. Union of India & Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran (1995 Suppl. 4 SCC 100)
6. District Collector and Chairman
9. S.P. Chanerjavaraya Narain vs. Jagannath & Ors. (1994(1) SCC 1).–Followed
7. Mangi Lal & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (1997(3) RLW 2017).–Relied on
8. Temple of Thakurji village Kansar vs. State of Raj. (1998 (1) RLW 127).–Relied on
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.