JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Smt. Manju R. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court against an order passed by Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, opposite party No. 6, on 17.12.2007. By this order the petitioner’s appointment and selection for the post of Police Constable has been cancelled and further an order has been passed for registering an F.I.R. against the petitioner under relevant sections. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Police Constable in pursuance of the advertisement and after undergoing the measurement, physical test, routine test and interview, the petitioner was declared selected by the constituted Board. Thereafter, the medical examination was conducted by the Medical Board at Reserve Police Lines, Fatehgarh and the petitioner was found medically and physically fit. The petitioner after being selected by the Selection Committee/Board was sent for training on 29.6.2005. After completing the training the petitioner was posted on permanent post of constable at Police Station, Kotwali, Mainpuri on 20.6.2006 and he was working on the said post when the impugned cancellation order was passed. 4. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that at the time of selection the petitioner was required to furnish an affidavit giving the details of his testimonials and the information required as per the advertisement. One of the column in the advertisement required an affidavit to be filed about the pendency of any criminal case against an incumbent. In the present case, the petitioner had filed an affidavit to the effect that at the time of selection no criminal case was pending against him to the best of his knowledge and belief. As per the normal procedure the selected candidates are sent for training and meanwhile the affidavits are sent for verification. In the present case, during the verification it was found that in fact an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner in case Crime No. 01/2001, under Sections 147, 323/506 IPC at Police Station Mariyahu, District Jaunpur. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against five persons including the petitioner. The said F.I.R. was lodged on the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., moved 24.12.2000. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against five persons including the petitioner. The said F.I.R. was lodged on the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., moved 24.12.2000. Further, a trial was conducted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur being trial No. 473 of 2004, which ended in acquittal of the petitioner as well as other five persons. The date of the order is 9.5.2005. 5. On the basis of this information the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri came to the conclusion that the affidavit filed by the petitioner at the time of his selection had no sanctity. Incorrect information was given by the petitioner. The fact, that petitioner was being selected in police force, filing of a false affidavit was a ‘charge’ good enough for cancellation of the petitioner selection. The impugned order was passed on the basis of this conclusion drawn by the Superintendent of Police. 6. The petitioner has specifically stated on oath in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that he had no knowledge of the said F.I.R. or pendency of any criminal case against him. Further, in para 17 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner was never arrested in the aforesaid case and he never applied for bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has even argued to the extent that the petitioner was never present in the trial and it was on the behest of other persons named in the F.I.R. that the case was contested in the trial Court. As such, when the F.I.R. was not lodged originally, he had no way of knowing about it unless it was investigated. He was never detained at the police station, never summoned for questioning or arrested for interrogation, there was no way the petitioner could have known about the pendency of a criminal case. The counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even otherwise the said criminal case has arisen out of a cricket game being played casually in the locality. A dispute has arisen on the spur of the moment and it was a normal kind of scuffle which cannot be any indication about the character of a person being of criminal nature. 7. A dispute has arisen on the spur of the moment and it was a normal kind of scuffle which cannot be any indication about the character of a person being of criminal nature. 7. After the game was over the matter had been forgotten by everyone including the petitioner and he never imagined that an F.I.R. will be lodged in such a small matter. In any case there is no evidence on record to prove that he had knowledge about a criminal case being pending against him and the information provided by him in the affidavit was absolutely true to the best of his knowledge and belief. 8. The learned standing counsel has filed a counter-affidavit and has argued that since the information given in the affidavit was belied in the verification, hence the Superintendent of Police was justified in cancelling the examination. On careful examination of the counter-affidavit, this Court could not find any specific averments or material to prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the pendency of the criminal case against him. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed reiterating the allegation and stating therein that there was no material before the Superintendent of Police that the affidavit was deliberately filed in order to conceal some material fact or to mislead the authorities into getting extra marks for the purpose. This being the case, this Court comes to the conclusion that on the date when the affidavit was filed, the petitioner was not knowing that the F.I.R. was lodged against him. Moreover, on the date when the petitioner was sent for training, he already stood exonerated by the trial Court on merits. The order of the trial Court has been annexed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the operative portion of the order clearly exonerate the petitioner including others of the charges under which the trial has commenced. 9. Under the circumstances, the Court feels that the affidavit filed by the petitioner was genuine and no attempt was made by the petitioner to mislead the authorities. There was no evidence before the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri on the basis of which he could unequivocally come to the conclusion that the petitioner has filed the said affidavit with mala fide intention. There was no evidence before the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri on the basis of which he could unequivocally come to the conclusion that the petitioner has filed the said affidavit with mala fide intention. His belief that the petitioner’s affidavit was filed deliberately is not based on any cogent material before him, hence the conclusion drawn by him is incorrect. Apart from this, the Court does not have any material to come to the conclusion that the impugned order has been passed after application of mind. Therefore, it is an arbitrary and unreasonable order. 10. Accordingly, this Court quashes the orders dated 17.12.2007 and directs the opposite parties to immediately reinstate the petitioner on the post where he was working on the date. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court had already passed an interim order on 15.2.2008. It is a matter of great concern that this Court order has not been complied with. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service since the impugned order was passed. 11. At this juncture the petitioner has very fairly stated that since he has not been working from the date he was terminated he does not want to claim any salary for that period. In view of this statement the order should be complied forthwith. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost. ————