The legal principle established is that providing false information or suppressing material information regarding criminal cases can justify termination of services.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The petitioner has assailed correctness of the order dated 02.08.2017 discharging the petitioner from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rule, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) which enables the competent authority to discharge a police official within a period of three years of appointment. The petitioner filed an appeal, however, the same was found not maintainable.

2. It would be noted here that the petitioner applied for direct recruitment to the post of Constable pursuant to recruitment notice No. 08 of 2015 published on 19.07.2015. As per sub-clause (iii) of clause with the heading "General", it was provided as under: "General:

i) The candidate, who are having colour blindness or flat foot or knocking knees need not apply.

ii) Persons less in height & chest measurements and with any physical deficiency need not apply.

iii) A candidate against whom a criminal case stands registered and is under Investigation or pending Trial or who has been convicted by a Court of Law need not apply".

On the day the petitioner submitted application seeking appointment, he stood convicted in a criminal case No. 187-1 dated 24.04.2011 vide judgment dated 24.02.2015. The petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The petitioner did not disclose this fact while submitting the application. On 24.06.2017, the petitioner, as requested, submitted attestation form asking him to disclose the following information under Clause (13):

"13(1)

(a) Have you ever been arrested? No (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? No (c) Have you ever been kept under detention? No (d) Have you ever been bound down? No (e) Have you ever been fined by a court of Law? No (f) Have you ever been convicted by court of Law? No (g) Have you ever been debarred from any examination or rusticated by any University of any other educational Authority/institution? No (h) Have you ever been debarred/dis-qualified by any Public Service Commission/Staff Selection Commission for any of its examination/selection? No (i) Is any case pending against you in court of Law are with Police at this time of filing of this attestation form? Yes (j) Is any case pending against you in any No Civil Writ Petition No. 3106 of 2019 (O&M) 3 University of any other educational authority/institution at the time of filling up this attestation form? (k) Have you ever been discharged or removal from any job? No (l) Have you ever been court martialled under Army Act (For Ex-servicemen only) No

It is apparent that under Clause (13)(i)(b) and (f), the petitioner gave false information.

3. The petitioner was recruited as Constable and was allotted constabulary number on 26.06.2017. The competent authority, in order to verify the character and antecedents of the candidate, forwarded the information to the concerned police station, from where, it was informed that the petitioner has not provided the correct information. The petitioner was, thus, discharged on 02.08.2017.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was acquitted by the Appellate Court in appeal vide judgment dated 28.11.2017. He, hence, submitted that the order of discharge is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post of Constable in view of a specific clause in the advertisement. He further submitted that not only the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material information, but also, he intentionally provided false information. He, hence, submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy.

7. It would be noticed here that on this aspect, there was difference in views of the Courts. Recently, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. The Larger Bench