ORDER :

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)

By preferring this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant- Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope, the appellant herein has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No.6600 of 2014 on 18.04.2022 whereby the writ application for quashing of the order passed by the respondent terminating his services be quashed.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute in this case. The appellant after adoption of the procedure of selection was appointed on 20.08.2013 on the rank of RT/GD, Constable, Ranchi in the C.R.P.F, however, the Commandant of the Force terminated his service on 11.9.2014.

3. Before the issuance of advertisement and submission of the application by the writ petitioner on 27.3.2009 an F.I.R was lodged against the appellant/writ-petitioner for alleged commission of offences under section 420, 467, 468, 471/34 and section 290 of the I.P.C., 1860, read with section 47(a) of the Excise Act. The charges were framed on 18.08.2010 by the criminal court in seisin of the matter for the aforesaid offences. It is also not disputed that the appellant/writ-petitioner was acquitted later on, on 28.02.2015. But by that he submitted his application. The criminal case was pending and charges were already framed and he was appointed on 20.8.2013. When this matter came to the knowledge of the authorities the impugned order was passed and the appellant/writ-petitioner’s services were terminated. The appellant/writ-petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition against the judgment rendered by the learned writ Court which is impugned before us in this case.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner relied upon the policy guidelines issued by the Government of India (Bharat Sarkar), Ministry of Home Affairs on 1st February, 2012 especially paragraph 1 of the said guidelines which provides as follows:-

“I. A candidate is required to declare the application form, whether he has been arrested, prosecuted or convicted by a Court for any criminal offence. If a candidate does not disclose the fact of his/her involvement and/or arrest in criminal case (s), complaint case (s), preventive proceeding etc under the I.P.C. or any other Act of Central/State Government in the application form during medical examination as well as in the attestation/verification form and the facts subsequently comes to the notice of recruiting authorities is found out from the verification report received from the district authorities or otherwise his candidature/appointment will he cancelled. However, in case candidate has already been appointed while cancelling/terminating, the principle of natural justice shall be followed and opportunity of being heard would be accorded to the candidates.”

5. Thus, the question arises before us for determination in this case is whether in case where it is admitted by the writ petitioner in course before the learned Single Judge as well the Court before us that a criminal case was pending when the application form was submitted and also he has not mentioned this fact of pendency of criminal case, whereas the charges has already been framed against him for the offences stated above in the preceding paragraphs the writ petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause as if such opportunity is not granted in his favour then what shall be the consequence of the action and what should be the course further.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied heavily on the off quoted and reported case of Avtar Singh V. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 we find it appropriate to take paragraphs nos. 33 to 38 which are quoted hereinbelow:

33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of forged documents, as observed in M. Bhaskaran case [Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 162 : (1996) 32 ATC 94], it has also been observed in the refe