JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri. Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.4.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police Kannauj (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), by which the petitioner’s services were no longer required, giving him one month’s salary and allowances, if any, for the notice period, under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1975). The petitioner has further prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to permit him to continue and complete his training of constable and to appoint him as constable in U.P. Police and pay salary and other emoluments, in accordance with law.

3. Facts of the case are that in the recruitment process for the post of constables in U.P. Police, year 2005-06, the petitioner qualified in physical and written test and after interview he was declared successful and was selected on the post of constable in District Kannauj. The selected candidates were required to submit an affidavit in the prescribed proforma for police verification. The petitioner also filed an affidavit dated 10.6.2006 verified by public notary, but in the said affidavit the petitioner stated that there was no criminal case pending against him. On police verification, the Station Officer, Police Station-Vidhunu submitted report dated 23.6.2006 that a Case Crime No. 409 of 2005 under Sections 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner, in which charge sheet had also been filed. However, the police report stated that the petitioner was a person of good character and reputation.

4. After the police verification report, the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj/Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 18.7.2006, sought opinion from the District Magistrate, Kannauj for sending the petitioner on training and after the letter of the District Magistrate, Kannauj, dated 23.8.2006 to the effect that, there was no legal impediment in the petitioner’s appointment, the petitioner was sent for initial training to Etawah by order dated 30.8.2006.

5. A show cause notice dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) was served to the petitioner to show cause as to why his selection be not cancelled, for concealment of the fact of pendency of the criminal case against him.

6. The petitioner filed reply dated 14.12.2006 stating, inter-alia, that on the date of submitting application for recruitment process i.e. on 3.9.2005, no case was registered against him. The Case Crime No. 409 of 2005 under Sections 324, 504 and 506 IPC was registered against him due to minor family disputes. The petitioner, however, admitted that in the affidavit filed by him due to inadvertent mistake and oversight of the learned advocate, as many affidavits were being prepared of so many candidates, the petitioner’s case could not be separated and the pendency of Case Crime No. 409 of 2005 could not be disclosed and his affidavit was also prepared on the same lines as of so many other candidates.

7. At this stage it requires mention that, later on, in case Crime No. 409 of 2005 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 23.12.2006 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and considering the petitioner’s acquittal, he was sent to Etawah for intensive training vide letter dated 8.1.2007, by the Superintendent of Police, Kannauj.

8. The Superintendent of Police, Kannauj by the impugned order dated 7.4.2007 terminated the services of the petitioner, under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975, as no longer required on the ground that the petitioner concealed the material fact of pendency of Case Crime No. 409 of 2005 against him. The petitioner’s reply to the show cause