The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition challenging termination from service may not be maintainable without impleading the Union of India, and termination based on misrepresentation in obtaining employment is justified.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20. 1. 1988 (Annex 1), by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and order dated 3. 6. 1999 (Annex. 5), by which his appeal has been dismissed.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was recruited on the post of Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (in short, CRPF) in 1987. His services had been terminated vide impugned order dated 20. 1. 1988 on the ground that he had obtained the employment by misrepresentation. While filling up the application form for the post, every applicant was asked to furnish the particulars as to whether he had ever been implicated in any criminal case. Petitioner filled up the relevant column in negative, and as subsequently, on inquiry while verifying his character, it came in the knowledge of the appointing authority that he had been involved in a Criminal Case No. 42 of 1987, under Sections 279, 337, 506 I. P. C. , p. S. Kandhai, District Pratapgarh, his services were terminated vide order dated 20. 1. 1988 (Annex. 1 ). Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal in 1998/asked for reinstatement, which has been dismissed by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 3rd June, 1999 (Annex. 5 ). Hence this petition.

( 3 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that order of termination could not have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to him. Petitioner had not been involved in a case involving moral turpitude. More so, he has been acquitted in the said case, therefore, the suppression of material information, even if it was done deliberately, did not warrant termination of his services. After acquittal in the said case, his involvement stood washed off, and therefore, it was neither desirable nor permissible to pass the order of termination of his services. More so, the appointing authority did not consider the appeal in correct prospective and dismissed it without giving any reason. As petitioner had been acquitted of the charges in the criminal case, he was entitled for reinstatement. Hence both the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Shri N. K. Chatterji, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that suppression of the information sought by the appointing authority at the initial stage itself amounts to indulging in moral turpitude. Thus, it was totally irrelevant as to whether petitioner had been involved in a criminal case involving moral turpitude or not. It is the antecedents of the applicant and not the result of the case, which is the decisive factor. He was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment and order dated 26. 11. 1990, i. e. , after 12 years of his termination. Petitioner did not file any appeal against the said order of termination, rather applied for reinstatement on 4. 12. 1998 as he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The said application was rejected vide order dated 3. 6. 1999 (Annex. 5 ). He could not claim his reinstatement as he was not removed on the ground of pendency of the criminal case against him. More so, another criminal Case No. 79a of 1986 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 504 and 506 I. P. C. was also pending against the petitioner. Thus, no interference is called for in equity jurisdiction. In addition thereto, a preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Chatterji that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Though no such ground has been taken in the counter affidavit, but he raised prime issue that as Union of India has not been impleaded in the array of parties as respondent, the writ petition itself is not liable to be entertained. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 6 ) IN Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Anr. , AIR1977 SC 1701 , (1977 )1 SCC484 , [1977 ]2 SCR409 , 1977 (1