Pradeep Kant, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This special appeal, by the Union of India and its officers challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.7.2010, by means of which the writ petition preferred by the respondent challenging his order of termination from service has been set aside and he has been directed to be reinstated in service. 3. In short, the admitted facts to the case are that on an advertisement being issued by the appellants for filling up the vacancies of Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, the writ petitioner-respondent applied for being appointed against one such vacancy. He was called for physical examination, which he successfully cleared. The writ petitioner-respondent after qualifying the written test and interview, finally selected and declared successful. He appeared in the medical examination thereafter, which examination he also cleared successfully. Finally, he was declared selected on 16.2.2009. In pursuance to this selection, the appointment letter was issued to him by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow in pursuance whereof, the writ petitioner-respondent joined on 13.3.2009. He was sent for training to Kerala and after completing his training, he was informed that he was to be posted with the 87th Battalion stationed at Narsingarh, Tripura. The writ petitioner-respondent had just joined at his new place of posting at Narsingarh, Tripura, where he was served with the impugned notice dated 16.6.2010 issued by the Commandant, 87th Battalion, terminating the services of the writ petitioner-respondent. 4. At the time of appointment, the writ petitioner-respondent was required to fill up a 'Verification Roll' wherein certain informations were required to be given by the writ petitioner-respondent about himself. In Column-12 of the Verification Roll, it was required to furnish the information regarding the fact that the applicant was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined or 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. The writ petitioner-respondent, in answer to the aforesaid queries, answered 'No', meaning thereby, he was never arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined etc. 5. The writ petitioner-respondent, in answer to the aforesaid queries, answered 'No', meaning thereby, he was never arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined etc. 5. It was stated that on the verification being made, it has been found that a case under Sections 147/323/504 and 506 of IPC was registered against the writ petitioner-respondent, as Case Crime No.82 of 2007 at Police Station- Unchahar, District Raibareli. According to his own showing in the writ petition, he was not arrested though allegedly he surrendered before the Police and released from the police station itself on giving surety. 6. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition mainly saying that the answer given by the writ petitioner-respondent as 'No' to the composite question put in Column-12 of the 'Verification Roll' does not amount to supply of false information or suppression of material facts as envisaged under Column-3 of the said Roll as also after considering the fact that the writ petitioner-respondent was a young aged person and when today the job opportunities are shrinking, the information given by the writ petitioner-respondent in answer to Column-12 as 'No' can be read as near truth. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the character certificate issued to the writ petitioner-respondent mentions that there is no offence committed by him involving moral turpitude or any serious offence. 7. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for appellants, placed reliance upon the following cases:- 1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437 . 2. Union of India and others v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen (2008) 11 SCC 314 . 3. A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and others (2005) 7 SCC 177 . 4. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and another (2004) 6 SCC 254 . 7. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been specifically held by the Apex Court that non-giving of such an information is a clear suppression of material information and it is also a false statement. 8. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, furnishing of incorrect information by the writ petitioner-respondent about his arrest, prosecution and detention etc. in a criminal case would not entitle him to continue in service. 8. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, furnishing of incorrect information by the writ petitioner-respondent about his arrest, prosecution and detention etc. in a criminal case would not entitle him to continue in service. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge also cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, and is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed.