Judgment J.M. MALIK, J. 1. CM No. 17315/2007 Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. 2. The short question which falls for consideration is whether the services of Shri Dalip Kumar, petitioner/workman was legally terminated by its employer, Management, Lady Harding Medical College and Smt.S.K.Hospital” The Labour Court vide its award dated 1st February, 2007 did not find sufficient ground to interfere with the orders of petitioners removal. The Labour Court further found that the petitioner was not entitled to any other relief. .3. A brief statement of facts of the petitioners case is this. The petitioner was appointed as chowkidar with the respondent/employer on 7th March, 1997. Para 7 of his appointment letter Ex.MW1/B clearly, specifically and unequivocally lays down following condition:-“If any declaration given or information furnished by the candidate proves to be false or if the candidate is found to have willfully suppressed any material information he/she will be liable to removal from service and such other action the appointing authority may deem necessary.” Again, Para 3 of the Attestation Form Ex.MW1/D prescribes:-“If the fact that also (SIC) 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.” 4. The above-said matter was sent to the police authorities for verification. The DCP, Special Branch, New Delhi, sent a letter dated 6th March, 1997 Ex.MW1/F, which reads:-“He was arrested in case FIR No. 126 dt. 12.6.1998 U/s 380 IPC, police station Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. As per record of PS K.M. Pur, New Delhi he has been acquitted in the above case on 13.03.89 by the court of Sh. O.P.Gupta, M.M.” 5. The respondent terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 13th May, 1997 vide order dated 8th May, 1997 without any notice or enquiry. The removal order Ex.MW1/G specifies:-“Sh. Dalip Kumar, Chowkidar is hereby removed from service in this institution with immediate effect for his suppressing the material information in regard to his arrest during 1986, in the attestation form of character and antecedents verification, as reported by the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Special Branch.” 6. The removal order Ex.MW1/G specifies:-“Sh. Dalip Kumar, Chowkidar is hereby removed from service in this institution with immediate effect for his suppressing the material information in regard to his arrest during 1986, in the attestation form of character and antecedents verification, as reported by the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Special Branch.” 6. The plea of the workman/petitioner before the Labour Court was that as a matter of fact he was discharged in the above-said criminal case bearing FIR No. 126/1986 by the learned M.M. vide order dated 13th March, 1987. He made a representation before the Management on 16th May, 1997 but the Management did not respond. He sent a legal demand notice on 28th July, 1997 but it did not ring the bell. Consequently, the matter was reported to Labour Secretary, who referred the same before the Labour Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the fact that the petitioner had been acquitted should have been taken into account. In support of his case, he had cited an authority before the Labour Court reported in M.Ravindran Vs. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd., 2002 Lab IC 1011 (Kant), wherein it was held, “16. In the light of these judgments it is clear to me that an acquittal on the same set of facts comes to the aid of workman in seeking an order of reinstatement. Unfortunately the Labour Court fell into an error in not properly appreciating the facts. The Labour Court brushed aside the acquittal order in the award without realising the importance and impact of an acquittal order. In the circumstances I am of the view that the Labour Court has committed a serious error in not ordering reinstatement after an order of acquittal.” .8. Parallels cannot be drawn between the facts of the cited case and those of the instant case. In the cited case, the workman did not seek employment on any false or incorrect information. In this case, the condition precedent was that the petitioner was not supposed to make a false declaration or give a false information. The main question was whether the petitioner was arrested in a police case or not. The suppression of the above-said fact was pernicious. He was not removed because he was acquitted or convicted but because he had made a false statement. The main question was whether the petitioner was arrested in a police case or not. The suppression of the above-said fact was pernicious. He was not removed because he was acquitted or convicted but because he had made a false statement. Para 7 of the appointment letter of the petitioner clearly, specifically and unequivocally lays down that any willful suppression of any material information will be liable to removal of the petitioners service. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was removed in accordance with the rules. .9. I am able to locate few authorities which go to embolden the case of the respondents. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kendriva Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav [ AIR 2003 SC 1709 ] neatly dovetails with the facts of this case. In that case too there was no mentioning of pending criminal case in the Attestation Form. In this case, the Supreme Court was pleased to hold :-“12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence of the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents of coloumn Nos. 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted.” 10. The Apex Court in cases reported in Union of India and Others Vs. A. Nagamalleshwar Rao [ (1998) 1 SCC 700 ] and Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Anr. [ AIR 1985 SC 504 ] took the same view. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. [ 2006 (92) DRJ 510 (DB)], held, “13. Learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 (3) SCC 437 and Ram Saran Vs. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. [ 2006 (92) DRJ 510 (DB)], held, “13. Learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 (3) SCC 437 and Ram Saran Vs. IG of Police, CRPF and Others, 2006 (2) SCC 541 to contend that once an applicant or a candidate makes an incorrect or false entry in his form, it will be a conduct, which can hardly be condoned and termination from service would be justified. Even such punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to such offence as otherwise it would mean to give premium on falsehood.” 12. To the same effect, another case reported in Brijesh Singh Vs. Union of India [2006 (2) AD Delhi 718] (DB), where the material fact was deliberately suppressed by the petitioner in the attestation form that he was facing a criminal trial under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. It was held that the concealment of this material fact speaks about the mind set up of the petitioner and therefore, under these circumstances, the conclusion that he was not likely to be efficient soldier cannot be faulted. 13. Again in Shamim Akhtar Khan Vs. Union of India [2004 (113) DLT 373] the petitioner was also specifically cautioned in writing qua the attestation form which was filled up by the petitioner himself and at the top of the said form the consequences of furnishing false information and suppression of material facts were set out in clear terms. His removal was upheld. 14. After evaluating the pros and cons of this writ petition, I find that the present writ petition is without merits. The same is therefore dismissed in limini. 15. CM No. 17316/2007 The application has rendered infructuous in view of the dismissal of the petition.