JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The dismissal of the writ petition that had been filed for setting aside the termination order dated 28th February, 2004 passed by the Commandant, 151 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘CRPF’) under the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCS (Temporary) Rules), as well as the order dated 17th August, 2004 passed on the review petition has led to the filing of this Special Appeal by the petitioner. 2. The appellant was selected on temporary basis as a Constable in the CRPF by means of the letter dated 12th April, 2003. While seeking the aforesaid appointment, the appellant filled up the Verification Roll as was required under Rule 14(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF Rules). The Verification Roll contained a warning that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll will be a disqualification and was likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. It also mentioned that if the fact that false information was furnished or that there was suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. 3. The appellant was required to furnish information mentioned in the Verification Roll and clauses 12(a) and 12(b) which are relevant for the purposes of the present Appeal are quoted below : "12(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/selection, 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 answer to (a) or (b) is ‘Yes’ then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the Court/University/education authority at the time of filling in this form.” 4. Against the aforesaid clauses 12(a) and 12(b) of the Verification Roll, the appellant mentioned ‘Nil’. If answer to (a) or (b) is ‘Yes’ then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the Court/University/education authority at the time of filling in this form.” 4. Against the aforesaid clauses 12(a) and 12(b) of the Verification Roll, the appellant mentioned ‘Nil’. The verification of the character and antecedents of the petitioner-appellant was done through the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh as is required under Rule 14(a) of the CRPF Rules. The District Magistrate informed that First Information Report under Sections 436, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code had been lodged against the petitioner in the year 2001. It is upon receipt of the aforesaid information that the order dated 28th February, 2004 was issued by the Competent Authority under the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary) Rules that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the expiry of one month. 5. The appellant filed a Review Petition which was also dismissed by the order dated 17th August, 2004. 6. The learned Judge by the impugned order declined to interfere with the impugned orders as the petitioner-appellant had not approached the Court with clean hands since he had made an incorrect statement in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that he had not filled the Verification Roll in his own handwriting and had only put his signatures on the dotted lines. 7. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri Sunil Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that though a First Information Report regarding the involvement of the appellant had been lodged in the police station on 6th March, 2001 and was registered as Case Crime No. 2001 but subsequently a final report was submitted by the police to the Competent Court on 11th March, 2001 which was ultimately accepted by the Court on 28th October, 2004. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner had not made any false declaration in clauses 12(a) and 12(b) of the Verification Roll as neither he had been arrested or prosecuted and nor was any case pending against him in any Court of law and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Department of Home Secretary. A.P. and others v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 . He also submitted that the appellant had not made any false statement in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. 9. Sri Sunil Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that as the petitioner had made a false statement in paragraph 11 of the writ petition that he had not filled up the Verification Roll in his own handwriting, the learned Judge was justified in declining to entertain the petition. He further submitted that the police had submitted the final report in the Court for its acceptance and so a case was pending against the appellant in a Court of law but the appellant gave a false information that no case was pending against him. 10. Though it is the submission of Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the Verification Roll had not been filled by the appellant in his own handwriting and in fact he had only signed it but we refrain from examining this controversy as even otherwise we find that there is no case on merit. 11. It is not in dispute that the police had submitted the final report in the Competent Court on 11th March, 2001 and the case for acceptance of the final report was pending in the Competent Court and it is only on 28th October, 2004 that the final report dated 11th March, 2001 was accepted by the Court. Thus the appellant had furnished false information in column 12(b) of the Verification Roll in 2003 that no case was pending against him in a Court of law. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that no case was pending against the appellant when information was furnished by the appellant in the Verification Roll. 12. It needs to be noticed that the Verification Roll contained a clear warning that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information would be a disqualification likely to render the candidate unfit for employment and that if at a later stage in service it was found that any false information had been furnished or there had been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll, then the services could be terminated. The petitioner had clearly suppressed information about the pendency of the case which he was required to disclose in the Verification Roll. The petitioner had also signed the Verification Roll clearly certifying that the information furnished by him was correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. 13. The Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 , examined the controversy where the candidate mentioned ‘No’ in Column 12(1) which required the candidate to indicate whether any case was pending against him in any Court of law at the time of filling up of attestation form and made the following observations : “...............The requirement of filling columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of the respondent as on the date of filling and attestation of the form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service. 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 the 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.” 14. 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.” 14. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya (supra) was followed subsequently by the Supreme Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and others, (2005) 7 SCC 177 and it was observed : “In our view, the appellant was justified in relying upon the ratio of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and contending that a person who indulges in such suppressio veri and suggestio falsi and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. We completely endorse this view.” 15. A Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Prasad Patel v. Union of India and others, 2006 (3) ESC 1669 , also observed, after placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, that the antecedents, conduct and character of the candidate to be appointed is of paramount consideration and not the result of the criminal case in which he was involved and as the petitioner therein had obtained employment by misrepresentation i.e. by suppressing material information sought by the appointing authority, neither the result of the prosecution and nor the nature of the offence in which he was involved was relevant and nor the principles of natural justice were attracted. 16. In Secretary, Department of Home (supra) on which reliance has been placed by Sri Ashok Khare, the relevant Column 12 which came up for examination is as follows : “Column 12. Have you ever been convicted by a Court of law or detained under any State/Central preventive detention laws for any offence whether such conviction sustained in Court of appeal or set aside by the appellate Court if appealed against.” The Tribunal noted that as against Column 12 the candidate had not mentioned about the pending case. The High Court, however, observed that there was no requirement under Column 12 to mention about the pending case. The High Court, however, observed that there was no requirement under Column 12 to mention about the pending case. The matter was taken by the Department to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court observed : “A bare perusal of the extracted portions shows that the candidate is required to indicate as to whether he has ever been convicted by a Court of law or detained under any State/Central preventive detention laws for any offences whether such conviction is sustained or set aside by the appellate Court, if appealed against. The candidate is not required to indicate as to whether he had been arrested in any case or as to whether any case was pending. Conviction by a Court or detention under any State/Central preventive detention laws is different from arrest in any case or pendency of a case. By answering that the respondent had not been convicted or detained under preventive detention laws it cannot be said that he had suppressed any material fact or had furnished any false information or suppressed any information in the attestation form to incur disqualification. The State Government and the Tribunal appeared to have proceeded on the basis that the respondent ought to have indicated the fact of arrest or pendency of the case, though column 12 of the attestation form did not require such information being furnished. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that such a requirement has to be read into an attestation form. We find no reason to accept such contention. There was no specific requirement to mention as to whether any case is pending or whether the applicant had been arrested. In view of the specific language so far as column 12 is concerned the respondent cannot be found guilty of any suppression.” (emphasis supplied) 17. It is, therefore, clear that in the aforesaid case relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare, the candidate was not required to furnish information in the attestation form about any case pending against him and so it was held that he had not made any false declaration. In the present case, however, there is a specific clause, namely Clause 12(b), which required the appellant to categorically state whether any case was pending against him in the Court of law. The said decision, therefore, is of no benefit to the appellant. In the present case, however, there is a specific clause, namely Clause 12(b), which required the appellant to categorically state whether any case was pending against him in the Court of law. The said decision, therefore, is of no benefit to the appellant. Infact, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) and A.P. Public Service Commission (supra), it has to be held that the appellant had given false information/suppressed factual information in the Verification Roll as he did not disclose that a case was pending against him in the Court of law at the time of filling up of the Verification Roll. 18. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order dated 28th February, 2004 by which the temporary services of the appellant were terminated under the provisions of Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary) Rules as he had given false information/suppressed factual information in the Verification Roll. 19. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ————