JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction for offering appointment as an Assistant Commandant (Telecom) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police. 2. The fact and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had applied for the said post in view of the advertisement and his name was included in the select list. However, petitioner had not been offered appointment for the reason that a criminal case had been pending against him and he did not disclose the factum of pendency of the criminal case in the verification Roll. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. K.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that mere pendency of the criminal case does not deprive the petitioner from being appointed on the post in question. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Pareek, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner has purposely suppressed the material information while getting the Verification Roll filled-up and, thus. not filling up the verification roll itself amounts to moral turpitude and it is not necessary that he had been involved in the criminal case involving moral turpitude, though Mr. Pareek submitted that mere pendency of the criminal case cannot deprive a candidate from being appointed. 4. The Verification Roll itself contains the following warnings : "(a) Furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation form would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. (b) If detained, arrested, prosecuted, bound down, fined, convicted, debarred, acquitted etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the authorities to whom the attestation form has been sent early, failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information. (c) If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the attestation form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated." 5. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid warnings that it was mandatory for the petitioner to fill up the form properly and furnish all the material information. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid warnings that it was mandatory for the petitioner to fill up the form properly and furnish all the material information. The photostat copy of the form filled up by the petitioner himself has been produced in the court, wherein Clause 12 sought the following information : "(a) 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/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/institution. (b) is any case pending against, you in any court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll. If the answer to (a) and (b) is `Yes' full particulars of the case, arrest, detention, fine, conviction, sentence, etc. and the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/Educational authority etc. at the time filling up this form should be given. Please also see the Warning at the top of this verification Roll." Petitioner had not filled up the said columns and felt the same blank. This amounts to misrepresentation and petitioner had sought employment by misrepresentation. 6. The case stands fully covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dharampal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & ors., 2000 (2) WLC (Raj.) 400 : 2000 RLW 815 wherein this Court had considered a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 ; Collector of Customs v. Tin Flat Co. of India Ltd., (1997) 10 SCC 538 ; S.P. Changulvaraiha Naidu v. Jagannathan and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1 ; U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. B. Shital Nandwani, AIR 1991 SC 909 ; Krishna Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 2166 ; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC 3300 ; Allahabad Bank and another v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 ; Hamdarad Dawakhana & another v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554 , Rasiklal Vaghajibhati Patel v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr., (1985) 2 SCC 35 ; and Habeeb Mohammed v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 51 , and held that suppressing such a material information amounts to making an attempt to get employment by misrepresentation/fraud and in such a case, the suppression of material information itself amounts of moral turpitude and it becomes immaterial whether the delinquent was involved in a criminal case involving moral turpitude or not. Particularly, for seeking employment in a disciplined force, such an attempt has to do be dealt with seriously. 7. In Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar (supra), after considering the judgment given in Pawan Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court approved the following observations of the Allahabad High Court in Baleshwar Singh v. District Magistrate and Collector, AIR 1959 All. 71 "The expression `moral turpitude' is not defied 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 me 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, 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." 8. Mr. It will be contrary to accepted customary rule and duty between man and man." 8. Mr. K.C. Sharma has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal & ors., AIR 1999 SC 912 , wherein the Court has held that giving a false statement about pending criminal prosecution with intention to secure employment was not so grave misconduct to take immediate steps to terminate the employee. The aforesaid case is distinguishable as that was a case of termination. Here is the case of denying appointment on the ground of not furnishing the particular information. Moreso, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the said case in Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda (supra), had also made a reference to its own judgment in Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, AIR 1996 SC 686 , wherein it had been held that when the appointment is secured by an employee on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer's service card, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in favour of the employee or any estoppel against the employer and for such misconduct, termination is justifiable and there can be no question of holding any domestic enquiry. Moreso, the Hon'ble Supreme court has not taken note of its earlier judgments referred to above. 9. It is next submitted by Mr. Sharma that the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh (supra) has been referred to a Five Judges Bench by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Coir Board, Ernakulam Kerala State & Ors. v. Indira Devi P.S. & ors., (2000) 1 SCC 224 , held that reference can be made to a Larger Bench for examining the correctness of the judgment only by a Bench consisting of the same number of Judges who have delivered the judgment, the correctness of which is doubted. Thus, reference by the learned Single Judge regarding correctness of the Full Bench judgment itself is doubtful. 10. Thus, in view of the above, I find no force in the petition. Petition, being squarely covered by the aforesaid Full Bench judgment, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. *******