JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31-3-1998, contained in Annexure-3 to the petition, by which the respondent-Authority refused to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Police Constable. 2. Petitioner had not been offered appointment on the post of Police Constable in spite of his selection, only on the ground that on verification made by the respondent-Authority through the Local Administration, it has been revealed that petitioner had been subjected to criminal trial before applying for the employment in response to the advertisement for the posts and this factum was not disclosed by the petitioner while applying for employment. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal trial is of no consequence and not worth considering, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had not been found non-suited for employment on the ground of his involvement in criminal cases, rather he had been found guilty of suppressing the material fact while filling up the application form for the said posts. 3. In the application form, which the petitioner had filled up, there was a specific column, i.e. Column No. 17 wherein the petitioner was asked to furnish certain information : Whether the applicant had ever been subjected to criminal case and if "Yes" with what result; or whether any criminal case was pending against him? The petitioner had suppressed this fact and answered in negative while filling up the said column. On verification from the Local Administration when the respondent-Authority came to know that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact of having been involved in a criminal case, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's involvement in criminal cases, particularly after acquittal cannot be taken into account, is not worth consideration. Petitioner has not disputed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case nor he has denied the factum of suppression of material information/or making misrepresentation on this issue, while filling up the application form. Thus, it is admitted fact that petitioner tried to obtain the employment by making false-statement/misrepresentation, which tantamounts to fraud. 4. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets the appointment by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the Competent Authority, such appointment cannot be sustained. Thus, it is admitted fact that petitioner tried to obtain the employment by making false-statement/misrepresentation, which tantamounts to fraud. 4. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets the appointment by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the Competent Authority, such appointment cannot be sustained. (Vide S.P. Changulvaraiha Naidu v. Jagannatha, 1994 (1) SCC 1 . In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All ER 349 , it has categorically been held that anything obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, cannot be allowed to be sustained. 5. In Andhra State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills, 1994 (2) SCC 647 : ( AIR 1994 SC 2151 ) and State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent pepretration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub-letties invented to evade law." 6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the impugned orders could not have been passed without giving petitioner an opportunity of hearing, is, also, preposterous for the reason that in such case where an order is obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, the principles of natural justice are not attracted to rectify the mistake which the Authority had committed because of the fraud played by the applicant. In U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. B. Shital Nandwani, AIR 1991 SC 909 , the students had got admission in M.B.B.S. Course by making misrepresentation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the plea of applicability of the Rules of Natural Justice observing that under the circumstances in which such benefit had been taken by the candidates concerned, do not justify attraction of the Rules of Natural Justice by providing them an opportunity of hearing. Even in a case where an applicant may not be responsible for playing fraud, his appointment can, also, be cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing to him in case the Authority comes to the conclusion that the appointment had been made by playing fraud by the Members of the Selection Committee though the candidate had not played any part/mischief in the said selection. In Krishna Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 2166 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when the entire selection was stinking "conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit", individual's innocence has no place as fraud enravels everything. 7. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetrate the fraud by entertaining the petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC 100 : (1995 AIR SCW 4703) , the Apex Court has observed as under:- "If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer." 8. While deciding the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in District Collector and Chairman, U.S.W. School Society v. M. Thirupura Sandri Devi, 1990 (3) SCC 655 , wherein it has been held that employment obtained by misrepresentation cannot be permitted to be continued. 9. In Ratan Lal v. Union of India, 1998 (2) RLW 728 , this Court has considered this aspect and has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (3) RLW 2017 and of the single Bench in Temple of Thakurji, Village Kansar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1998 Raj 85 , and came to the conclusion that employment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, if cancelled by the employer, should not be interfered with by the Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction. 10. A Division Bench of this Court while entertaining D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 357/1998, Bhagirath v. State of Rajasthan decided on 2-7-1998 , had passed the following order : "We have gone through the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. We are in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge and the view taken by him. When the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, IPC etc. We are in complete agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge and the view taken by him. When the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, IPC etc. then obviously he should not have been appointed on the post of Police Constable. He was supposed to disclose the fact that he was convicted and he was found guilty and given benefit of probation. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed." 11. Mr. Sidhu has submitted that suppression of fact was not material at all. In fact the petitioner had been put in trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341 and 336, IPC and had been acquitted by the learned competent Criminal Court vide judgment and order dated 9-2-98. Neither a copy of the First Information Report nor the copy of the said judgment has been filed by the petitioner. Thus, it is not clear whether the petitioner had been acquitted of by giving the benefit of doubt or by compounding the offence after arriving at a compromise with the complainant party. Mr. Sidhu has submitted that if the applicant was not involved in an offence involving moral turpitude, he cannot be found ineligible on account of his involvement in the criminal case. Reliance has also been placed on judgments of this Court (Jaipur Bench) delivered on 3-3-1998 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4421/1994, Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan and a Division Bench of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 726/1997, State of Rajasthan v. Khalid Ahmed, decided on 18-5-1998 , wherein it has been held that suppression of material information should be deliberate and he should have been involved in a criminal case involving moral turpitude. 12. In fact, there are various aspects of moral turpitude. Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules, 1989") reads as under:- "13. Character. The character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in the Service. 12. In fact, there are various aspects of moral turpitude. Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules, 1989") reads as under:- "13. Character. The character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in the Service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic Officer of the University or College or School in which he was last educated and two such certificates, written not more than six months prior to the date of application, from two responsible persons not connected with his School or College or University and not related to him. Notes - (1) A conviction by a Court of Law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has its object to overthrow by violent means a Government as established by law, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification". (Emphasis added). 13. Thus, it is clear that if a person has been subjected to criminal trial for the offence not involving moral turpitude or association with crime of violence, would not become ineligible for service/employment. 14. In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 3300 wherein the Apex Court has observed as under (at page 1742 of Lab IC) : " `Moral turpitude' is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity." 15. The aforesaid judgment in Pawan Kumar case (supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, 1997 (4) SCC 1 , and placed reliance on Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector, AIR 1959 All 71 wherein it has been held as under (at page 74) : "The expression `moral turpitude' is not defined anywhere. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. But it means anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies depravity and wickedness of character or disposition of the person charged with the particular conduct. Every false statement made by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses vileness or depravity in the doing of any private and social duty which a person owes to his fellowmen or to the society in general. If, therefore, the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a duty, either to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man" (Emphasis added). 16. There is a Circular No. 56 (1) PF/Const./ 95/1687, dated 29-4-95 issued by the respondents, wherein rule 13 of the said Rules has been explained in view of the special fact that the work of the police is vital to the society as it is connected with the protection of life and property of the citizens. "Action of the police often impingned on the liberty of the people. It is hence necessary that the persons with up right and sterling character are recruited to the Force." Therein the "moral turpitude" has been explained as under : "Any act which indicates mala fide mental conduct such as theft or criminal misconduct towards the woman or forgery or wilful suppression of information (particularly adverse information) about the candidate etc. would be covered under "moral turpitude". Cases involving atrocities on Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and woman (dowry cases) would, also, fall under this category." (Emphasis added). 17. Further, the term "violence" has been explained in the said Memorandum dated 29-4-95, as under : "Violence - Crime of violence include assault (Sections 323, 325, 326 etc. IPC), rioting (Sections 147, 148 etc. IPC) and more serious offences like Sections 307, 302, IPC etc. Hence a candidate/applicant involved in any such case is not eligible for Police Service." 18. In the instant case, as the respondents have provided Guidelines to determine what constitutes "moral turpitude" and it has specifically been mentioned that wilful suppression of information (particularly adverse information) about the candidate would involve moral turpitude. Hence a candidate/applicant involved in any such case is not eligible for Police Service." 18. In the instant case, as the respondents have provided Guidelines to determine what constitutes "moral turpitude" and it has specifically been mentioned that wilful suppression of information (particularly adverse information) about the candidate would involve moral turpitude. There is nothing on record to find out whether petitioner has wilfully suppressed it or not, particularly in view of the fact that petitioner failed to explain as under what circumstances he had filled up that column answering it in negative. There had been no pleading to that extent and it is settled proposition of law that the petitioner has to plead and prove its case by substantiating material fact by adducing evidence etc. (Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 . So it cannot be said that petitioner has not suppressed material information while filling up the form. 19. In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary v. Sushil Kumar, 1996 (11) SC 605 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the similar case where the appointment was refused on the post of Police Constable and the Court observed as under : "It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offence, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service." 20. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service." 20. From the aforesaid discussion, I reached the following inescapable conclusion : (1) the advertisement for the post was made on 14-10-97 and on that date the petitioner was facing the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code; (2) the petitioner admittedly did not furnish correct information in Clause 17 and suppressed the material fact regarding pendency of the criminal case against him; (3) the criminal case was decided on 9-2-98 and the last date for submitting the application forms had been 24-11-97 and on the date of filling-up the application form, the petitioner had no reason to believe that he would be acquitted in the criminal case; (4) as the petitioner did not produce the copy of the F.I.R. or the judgment dated 9-2-98, it is not possible to ascertain whether petitioner had been acquitted for want of evidence, or by giving him the benefit of doubt, or by compounding the offence; (5) the judgments of this Court, which have been relied upon by Mr. Sidhu, are not applicable in the instant case as what has been held therein is that if a person has been subjected to criminal trial only for the offence involving moral turpitude, he would be ineligible for employment. Th the instant case, petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material information of pendency of the trial at the time of filling up the form which itself amounts to moral turpitude as per the Circular dated 29-4-95; and (6) petitioner has not averred in the writ petition that suppression of the factum of pendency of the criminal trial, while filling up the form, was not wilful or deliberate and thus inference is that he wanted to obtain employment by misrepresentation. 21. In totality of the circumstances, referred to above, I find no force in the writ petition ands it is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******