Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. At the time of making application under the advertisement no.01/2010 for appointment as Constable petitioner did not disclose that there were criminal case pending against him being Daltonganj (Satbarwa O.P.) P.S. Case No.332 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 1475 of 2008. Petitioner was subsequently appointed on the post of Constable after clearing recruitment tests on 30th June, 2012. However, during the verification of his credentials and the declaration made in the said application it was revealed that two criminal cases being Daltonganj (Satbarwa O.P.) P.S. Case No.332 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No.1475 of 2008 and Sadar P.S. Case No.432 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.1793 of 2010 were pending against the petitioner. In terms of Rule 673(Ka) of Jharkhand Police Manual, petitioner was issued charge sheet and his services were terminated by the order dated 10th June, 2013 vide Annexure2 bearing Memo No. 2156 issued by S.P., Garhwa. Petitioner's appeal has thereafter again been rejected by D.I.G., Palamau Range, Daltonganj vide Annexure-3 by the order dated 23rd October, 2013 bearing Memo no. 4238.

3. Petitioner's contention is that such unintentional omission in the declaration form by the petitioner should have been ignored by the respondent by taking lenient view as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others Versus Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011)4 SCC 644. It is submitted that both the cases have been compromised and the petitioner has been acquitted from the same. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment rendered in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2010)2 SCC 169. In the said case the termination was made without any notice or enquiry of the said employee after 7 long years when the Apex Court found that constitutional safeguard under Article 311 were required to be observed. Claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents who have stated that petitioner failed to disclose the essential material facts in the declaration at the time of making the application for appointment about pendency of any criminal case against him. He also managed to obtain character certificate due to mistake of Police Department.

4. However, during further verification of the credentials of the petitioner on the declaration, it came to their knowledge that he was facing the aforesaid criminal case at the time of his application by making false declaration. Thereafter, respondents have chosen to invoke the provisions of Rule 673 (Ka) and after due enquiry and after giving opportunity to the petitioner passed the impugned order of termination of his service on the same ground of having suppressed vital information at the time of seeking employment.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having regard to the aforesaid materials on record it is observed at the outset that a declaration in an application form relating to pendency of a criminal case against an interested candidate is not to judge the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of the criminal case rather for the purposes to judge the character or the antecedent of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service.

6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aforesaid issue in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 after consideration of several other earlier decision on the points are quoted hereunder:-

12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as requ