The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of accurate information disclosure during employment verification, the consequences of providing false information, and the justification for dismissal based on suppression of material facts and false declaration.

( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16. 2. 2005 dismissing appellants writ petition No. 5718 of 2005.

( 2 ) IN pursuance to the advertisement dated for the post of constable in C. R. P. F. the appellant was selected and appointed by order dated 19. 4. 2001. Thereafter he was required to fill in a verification form which he submitted on 13. 6. 2001. In para- 12-A of the said form the following information was required to be furnished: have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred/ disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/ institution?

( 3 ) THE appellant replied the said column by mentioning "no. Subsequently vide the District magistrate, Allahabad letter dated 13. 7. 2004, it came to the notice of the respondents that the appellant was involved and prosecuted in a criminal case. F. I. R. was lodged against the appellant on 10. 2. 1994 and registered as case Crime No. 33 of 1994 under Section 366, 376 I. P. C. . Police after making investigation submitted a chargesheet. The appellant was prosecuted in Crime Case no. 260 of 1999 in the Juvenile Court, Allahabad. The case was registered by the Court on 10. 10. 1998. At the time when the selection and appointment was made, criminal prosecution was going on. It appears that the witness Km. Sheela deposed her statement on 8. 11. 2002 wherein she retracted from her earlier statement and denied that the appellant committed any rape on her. Ultimately the appellant was acquitted in the aforesaid case by the Court of A. C. J. M vide order dated 11. 10. 2002.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, the prosecution was going on in 2001 when the appellant submitted his verification denying that he was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or punished/ fined/ convicted by court of law for any offence or disqualified by any court from appearing it examination etc. and thus the said information furnished by the appellant was false and therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant. A chargesheet was issued and after holding an enquiry, inquiry report was submitted holding appellant guilty of making false declaration. Accordingly the Commander 23rd Battalion, C. R. P. F. passed order dated 18. 1. 2005 dismissing appellant from service by exercising his powers under Section 11 (1) of C. R. P. F. Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 (A) of C. R. P. F. Rules 1955.

( 5 ) THE appellant approached this court by means of writ petition No. 5718 assailing dismissal order contending that since he was acquitted in the criminal case on the date when departmental chargesheet was issued and the impugned order was passed no criminal case was pending against him, hence the order passed by the authorities is illegal. Writ petition has been dismissed by the honble Single Judge. Hence this special appeal.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no concealment of fact on the part of the appellant in as much as at the time of appointment on 19. 4. 2001 he was not aware of the fact that a criminal case was pending against him, since he had not received any notice or information regarding the said case. Hence, there was no occasion of giving any false information on his part. He brought to the notice of this court order sheet of the trial court in criminal case No. 260 of 1999 showing that after the case was registered on 10. 10. 1998, the summons were issued vide order dated 10. 12. 1998 but he got information later on since he appeared in the trial court only on 18. 1. 2002, 23. 11. 2001, 14. 12. 2001 and 21. 12. 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of alleged offence having been committed, his age was only 14 years. The appellant neither was arrested nor su