Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J. and K.N. Pandey, J.:- 1. We have heard Shri Dilip Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents. 2. In this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules the petitioner-appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.9.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.47063 of 2007, dismissing the writ petition, against the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra dated 10.8.2007 terminating the petitioner's services, on swearing a false affidavit at the time of recruitment affirming that no criminal case was pending against him. 3. The petitioner appellant appeared in selections for the post of constable in the year 2005 published on 6.1.2005. He was selected by the Recruitment Board and was sent for training and served for two years. In pursuance to the direction issued by the Director General of Police, U.P. on 29.6.2007 an enquiry committee was constituted to verify the details of the constables recruited in the selection of the year 2005-06. The enquiry committee was required to scrutinise the documents regarding physical measurements, examination of health, character certificates, caste certificates and date of birth. 4. During the course of the enquiry it was found that a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) No.95 of 2004 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bans Deeh, Distt. Ballia was registered against the petitioner and proceedings under Section 107/116 CrPC were drawn against him on 18.4.2007. The Superintendent of Police, on the basis of the enquiry report dated 19.7.2007 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and hearing him, directed to register a criminal case against the petitioner as Case No.757 of 2007 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC P.S. Saraylakhansi, Distt. Mau and cancelled the petitioner's appointment by deleting his name from the police rolls on the ground that he had made false declaration in his affidavit dated 26.4.2005 at the time of recruitment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the petitioner had made specific averment in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition that he or any of his family member was not aware of the NCR No.95 of 2004 and the proceedings under Section 107/116 CrPC. The NCR was registered falsely implicating the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the petitioner had made specific averment in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the writ petition that he or any of his family member was not aware of the NCR No.95 of 2004 and the proceedings under Section 107/116 CrPC. The NCR was registered falsely implicating the petitioner. It was kept in the records of the police station without any investigation or issuance of notice to the petitioner or any of his family member. The Magistrate had not taken cognizance of this report. He also submitted that he had no knowledge of the proceedings under Section 107/116 for maintenance of peace. No notice was issued for these proceedings nor the petitioner was required to appear or had furnished any bonds. Learned Single Judge without considering the fact that the petitioner's services were terminated without issuing him any notice and the averments made in the writ petition that he had no knowledge of the criminal case relied upon Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan & Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 (97) FLR 117 SC in which it was held that where the candidate does not furnish truthful and correct information, he is liable to be terminated, dismissed the writ petition. 6. It is contended firstly that the petitioner appellant had no knowledge of the NCR and the proceedings under Section 107/117 CrPC. In the absence of the knowledge of these proceedings it was not expected from him to disclose the information in the affidavit. He submits that nothing has happened in the criminal proceedings so far, and thus these proceedings, which are even otherwise trivial in nature, could not be a ground to take away his livelihood. 7. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that once it was discovered that criminal cases were pending against the petitioner and the report was made by the enquiry committee, the Superintendent of Police did not commit any illegality in finding that the petitioner had made false declaration and in cancelling the petitioner's appointment. He submits that the petitioner had deliberately concealed these facts and had sworn false affidavit and thus the petitioner was not fit person to be appointed in the police. 8. In Mohd. Tahir Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2009 (9) ADJ 42 learned Single Judge relying upon the Division Bench judgment in Sri Ashok Kumar Vs. He submits that the petitioner had deliberately concealed these facts and had sworn false affidavit and thus the petitioner was not fit person to be appointed in the police. 8. In Mohd. Tahir Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2009 (9) ADJ 42 learned Single Judge relying upon the Division Bench judgment in Sri Ashok Kumar Vs. D.I.G., C.R.P.F. & Ors., Special Appeal No.335 of 2005 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 Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 14.11.2005 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35081 of 2007, Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. decided on 13.8.2007, held that if a person while applying for employment suppresses any relevant information, which reflects upon his character or conduct or fails to disclose correct facts, he is liable to be proceeded against and his selection or appointment is liable to be cancelled, but before taking such action or holding such person guilty of suppression of facts, the knowledge of such facts to the person concerned is necessary. A person is not supposed to disclose something of which he has no knowledge. He is not required to state something in his declaration, which has never come to his notice. The requirement of Clauses 4 and 9 of the affidavits are positive in nature to be disclosed on the information available to the person affirming the affidavit. The information given by the petitioner that no criminal case was registered, or is registered, or has been registered against him and that no criminal case is pending consideration, or is in trial, and that he has not been arrested or charges, is to be furnished on the information available to such person. He is not required to give information, on the basis of the personal knowledge, of the facts of which he has no notice or information at all. 9. In the present case, the respondents have not been able to establish that the petitioner had knowledge of the criminal proceedings against him. The enquiry committee did not find nor it is stated that any notice was issued on NCR against the petitioner or he had appeared in the investigation or proceedings, in any of the two cases. 9. In the present case, the respondents have not been able to establish that the petitioner had knowledge of the criminal proceedings against him. The enquiry committee did not find nor it is stated that any notice was issued on NCR against the petitioner or he had appeared in the investigation or proceedings, in any of the two cases. We further find that if the petitioner was given a notice or opportunity by the Superintendent of Police before making an order removing him from service, he may have established that he had no knowledge of the criminal case and was not guilty of swearing false affidavit. 10. The petitioner appellant was required to affirm affidavit providing in Clause 4 to 9 the information with regard to registration of criminal cases, pendency of criminal cases, pendency of trial arises in any criminal case or submission of charge sheet against him in any case. Even if for arguments sake, we assume the knowledge of the proceedings against the petitioner, which the State has not established, we find that he was not required to give the information regarding NCR or proceedings under Section 107/116 under any of the Clauses 4 to 9 of the affidavit. There was no case registered against him nor any case was pending in any court or any trial was pending in any court. He was not arrested or chargesheeted in any criminal case. 11. Learned Single Judge has erred in law in failing to consider the facts available on record. The findings that no enquiry is necessary before termination or dismissal of such candidate from service, is not a correct statement of law. 12. The special appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.9.2007 and the order of the Superintendent of Police dated 10.8.2007 by which the petitioner appellant was removed from service are set aside. The petitioner appellant shall be reinstated in services with full back wages and consequential benefits.