The main legal point established is that termination without affording an opportunity to explain the suppression of information violates the principles of natural justice and the relevant service rules.

BHANWAR SINGH, J.

( 1 ) SRI Satish Kumar Shukla, erstwhile constable of Central Reserve Police Force, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of his termination dated 27. 3. 1998. He has also sought for another writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work and discharge his duties as constable in C. R. P. F. , R. T. C.-4, Hammama, srinagar.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of this case is that the petitioner was appointed as constable of the Central reserve Police Force (C. R. P. F. ). After the prescribed process of selection and the final test of physical fitness, he joined his service on 1. 1. 1997 and completed nine months training very sincerely and honestly and during the said period of training, his record was absolutely satisfactory, unblemished and meritorious. However, just before the completion of his refresher training, his services were terminated vide order dated 27. 3. 1998, without any rhyme or reason. No opportunity of hearing had been afforded to him nor any prior show-cause notice was served upon him. In the termination order even no reason was assigned for his termination. In this way, the termination of the petitioner was wholly discriminatory, arbitrary and in clear violation of the mandates of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and since no inquiry was held as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution, his termination was illegal.

( 3 ) THE opposite parties filed the counter-affidavit of Mohinder Singh, the Additional Deputy inspector General of Police. Sri Singh asserted that after conducting the prescribed recruitment test and medical examination, the petitioner was appointed as constable (Recruitment-G. D.)Force No. 971400123) in Group Centre. Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow, with effect from 1. 1. 1997. While entering service, he was required to fill up a verification roll for verification of character and antecedents which he obtained on 18. 1. 1997 but suppressed factual information regarding a criminal case pending against him. In verification roll, a warning had been clearly incorporated that suppression of any factual information would be a disqualification for employment under the Government. A complaint was received in the office of Sri Mohinder singh with the allegation that a Criminal Case No. 90 of 1994 registered at P. S. Dalmau, under sections 323, 324, 325, 504 and 506, I. P. C. was pending in a criminal court at Rae Bareilly. On inquiry through protracted correspondence with the authorities concerned, it was found that the trial of the petitioner in that case culminated in his acquittal on the basis of a compromise on 7. 11. 1997 but on 18. 1. 1997, i. e. , at the time of furnishing of verification roll, the petitioner suppressed this factual information. In spite of a clear warning, the petitioner did not disclose the fact of the criminal trial in Col. 12 of the verification roll and this deliberate suppression of factual information amounted to a serious misconduct on his part. The conditions of service of temporary Government servants are governed by the provisions of "central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965". As per the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs o. M. No. 39/14/56-Estt (A) dated 22. 6. 1956, reasons for termination should not be mentioned in the termination order and on account of this direction, the termination order was issued as a simpliciter. There was a provision for appeal to the Head of the Department under Rule 5 (2) (a)of C. C. S. (T. S.) Rules, 1965, but the petitioner did not exhaust this alternative remedy. In view of all these facts and circumstances and the provisions of the Rules, the petitioners present writ petition is not maintainable and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the re