JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby petitioner’s selection for the post of Constable (Civil Police) has been cancelled by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly on the ground that he concealed the factum of registration of two criminal cases against him i.e. N.C.R. No. 33/2005, under Sections 323/504/506, IPC and Case Crime No. 380A/2005, under Sections 107/116 of Cr.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur and, therefore, has violated the condition No. 9 of the enclosure of D.I.G., Establishment, U.P., P.H.Q., Allahabad’s letter dated 4.9.2006 and para 15 of his affidavit by concealing correct information hence his selection is being cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that he had no knowledge about the registration of the above two cases till the date of submission of the application form as well as the date on which he filed affidavit before the authorities concerned while joining training and, therefore, it cannot be said that he concealed any material fact or has given a wrong information. He placed before this Court the averments contained in para 8.11(d) and 11(e) of the writ petition and stated that he had no knowledge of the above cases and the reply given by the respondents in counter-affidavit as well as the alleged inquiry report, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter-affidavit, to show that nothing has been brought before this Court also by the respondents that the petitioner knew the factum of registration of the above two cases against him. 5. On the contrary, Sri S.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel referring to his averments contained in para 5 and 7 of the counter-affidavit submitted that the petitioner had knowledge about the pendency of the cases but he intentionally suppressed that information and, therefore, has violated the stipulations given in the application form and is guilty of filing a false affidavit. 6. On the contrary, Sri S.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel referring to his averments contained in para 5 and 7 of the counter-affidavit submitted that the petitioner had knowledge about the pendency of the cases but he intentionally suppressed that information and, therefore, has violated the stipulations given in the application form and is guilty of filing a false affidavit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record as well as considering the rival submissions, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The sole question up for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner made a false claim before the authorities concerned at the time of filing of application form and the affidavit before joining and concealed certain information which he was bound to disclose having knowledge thereof. 8. The facts which he was required to disclose vide Clauses 4 to 9 of the affidavit are as under : Þ4- ;g fd esjs fo:) dksbZ vijkf/kd vfHk;ksx u rks iathÑr gS vkSj u dHkh iathÑr gqvk gSA ¼;fn dksbZ vijk/k iathÑr gqvk gks] rks mldk iw.kZ fooj.k nsa½A 5- ;g fd esjs fo:) dksbZ Hkh vijkf/kd vfHk;ksx fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa fopkjkèkhu ugha gSA ¼;fn gka] rks fooj.k nsa½A 6- ;g fd esjs fo:) dksbZ Hkh vfHk;ksx foospuk/khu ugha gSA ¼;fn gS] rks fooj.k nsa½A 7- ;g fd eq>s fdlh Hkh vijkf/kd ekeys esa fxjQ~rkj ugha fd;k x;k gSA ¼;fn fd;k x;k gS] rks fooj.k nsa½A 8- ;g fd dHkh esjk pkyku fdlh Hkh vijkf/kd ekeys esa ugha d;k x;k gSA ¼;fn fd;k x;k gS] rks fooj.k nsa½A 9- ;g fd esjk pfj= lkQ] lqFkjk ,oa mTtoy gSAÞ 9. The consequence of suppression or non-disclosure of correct information is provided in Clauses 15 and 16 which reads as under : Þ15- ;g fd bl kiFk i= esa esjs }kjk mfYyf[kr dksbZ Hkh ckr dHkh xyr ik;h tk;s vFkok fdlh lR; dks fNik;k x;k gS rks p;fur gks tkus ds ipkr~ Hkh esjk p;u fcuk uksfVl ds fujLr dj fn;k tk;s ,oa lkFk gh lkFk eq>s vkj{kh] iq:"k Áfk{k.k dkslZ ls fudky fn;k tk;sA 16- ;g fd ;fn kiFk i= esa dksbZ rF; xyr ik;k tk;s vFkok fNik;k gqvk ik;k tk;s rks esjs fo:) tks Hkh fof/kd dk;Zokgh gksxh mlds fy;s eSa lger gw¡AÞ 10. From the record it appears that on 17.4.2005 a N.C.R. No. 33/2005, under Sections 323/504/506, IPC was registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur. Another Case Crime No. 380A/2005, under Sections 107/116 of Cr.P.C. also said to have been registered at the same Police Station. The alleged inquiry report, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter-affidavit, dated 16.6.2007 submitted by the Circle Officer, Lines, Bareilly though confirm registration of the above two cases, but nowhere mention that the information of registration of those two cases, in one or the other way, was given to the petitioner or he had knowledge about the registration or pendency of the said two cases. In respect to Case Crime No. 380A/2005, under Sections 107/116 of Cr.P.C. he has further stated that no action was taken against the petitioner. The petitioner has categorically pleaded in the writ petition about lack of knowledge of the registration or pendency of the above two cases and in reply to para 11 of the writ petition the respondents in para 7 of the counter-affidavit though had pleaded that the petitioner had knowledge about the pendency of the cases but para 7 of the counter-affidavit has been sworn on the basis of record and no material has been placed on record to show as to how and in what manner the petitioner gather information about the registration and pendency of the above two criminal cases when he has categorically denied the same. No doubt, if a person while applying for employment has suppressed any relevant information which may reflect upon his character or conduct or fails to disclose the correct facts, despite of the requirement of such disclosure under conditions whereunder he has to apply, he is liable to be proceeded against and his selection or appointment, if any, made is also liable to be cancelled. But before taking such action or holding such person guilty of suppression of material facts, knowledge of such factum to the person concerned is an integral part and unless the incumbent has knowledge, the question of suppression of fact would not arise at all. But before taking such action or holding such person guilty of suppression of material facts, knowledge of such factum to the person concerned is an integral part and unless the incumbent has knowledge, the question of suppression of fact would not arise at all. In the case in hand, the petitioner could be guilty only if he has knowledge about the registration or pendency of the two criminal cases against him before he made disclosure before the authority concerned but if he had no knowledge at all, mere registration of a criminal case itself would not be relevant when the same was not in the knowledge of petitioner. 11. The above view finds support from a Division Bench decision of this Court (in which I was also a member) in Special Appeal No. 335 of 2005, Sri Ashok Kumar v. D.I.G., C.R.P.F. and others, decided on 16.12.2005 and two Single Judge judgments of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27419 of 2003, Constable No. 015023192 Sepoy Vinay Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India and others, decided on 14.11.2005 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35081 of 2007, Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 13.8.2007. 12. The respondents in the case in hand, therefore, have erred in passing the impugned order without considering the fact as to whether the petitioner had any knowledge about the registration or pendency of the two criminal cases till he submitted his application form or affidavit before the authority concerned. The impugned order, in the above circumstances, cannot be sustained. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 6.8.2007 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had completed partial training and, therefore, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to complete his training and to proceed accordingly in accordance with law. No costs. ————