Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 29.04.2004, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 20.05.2002 and after setting aside the same seek for reinstatement in the Central Reserve Police Force as a G.D.Constable with continuity of service and monetary benefits. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 19.12.2005. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit dated Nil (September 2006) has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order. 4. The petitioners service came to be terminated by the impugned order dated 20.05.2002 by having regard to Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. He was also paid one months pay and allowance in lieu of notice. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent. In the appeal, the petitioner had stated that the order impugned is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and it was a non-speaking order. The disciplinary authority had failed to take into account the report of Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District dated 27.05.2002 stating that the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case and was not connected with Crime No.349 of 2000 pending with Reddichavadi Police Station, Cuddalore. However, the petitioners appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority stating that when the petitioners character and antecedents were verified from the District Collector, Cuddalore, he informed the Department that Cr.No.349 of 2000 under various provisions of I.P.C was pending against the petitioner in Reddichavady Police Station, wherein he was cited as accused No.3. Based on the adverse report, the services of the petitioner were terminated under the relevant Rules. 5. It was only after the issuance of the termination order, the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore based on the report of Inspector of Police, Reddichavadi Police Station sent a report on 29.05.2002 stating that the case registered against the petitioner was false and he was not involved in any criminal case. Since the report received from the District Collector, Cuddalore and the Superintendent were varying, the matter was once again sent for verification by the Civil authorities. Since the report received from the District Collector, Cuddalore and the Superintendent were varying, the matter was once again sent for verification by the Civil authorities. As per the fresh report received from the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore vide letter dated 27.02.2004 through District Collector, it was found that a case was registered against the petitioner and he was cited as accused No.3 and 5. Subsequently, the sections were altered and the investigation was taken by the Inspector of Police. After completion of the investigation, the C.D. File was sent to the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. The Prosecutor gave opinion omitting Section 307 IPC against six accused including the petitioner and no other sessions case has been made out. The Inspector of Police subsequently prepared a charge sheet giving up the name of the petitioner. But the charge sheet was not sent to the Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore by the present Inspector of Police. It was returned by the Judicial Magistrate Court with a remark asking explanation for omitting the name of the petitioner from the charge sheet, which was against the opinion of the District Director of Prosecution. The report of the Superintendent which was sent subsequently shows that the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has produced a copy of the First Information Report in C.C.No.65 of 2004. In the charge sheet, the petitioners name has been dropped. It was on that basis, the petitioner contended that there is no case against the petitioner. The petitioner also produced a police memo stating that there is no mention about the petitioners involvement in the criminal case and the witness have mentioned only about other five accused. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was stated that the case in Crime No.349 of 2000 was registered against the petitioner before his appointment. The petitioner did not mention this fact while getting appointment. The present stand of the petitioner that subsequently after investigation, his name was dropped is not relevant. What is relevant is the petitioners failure to mention the pendency of the criminal case against him. Since he has suppressed this fact and no reply affidavit was filed controverting the stand, the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit will have to be accepted. What is relevant is the petitioners failure to mention the pendency of the criminal case against him. Since he has suppressed this fact and no reply affidavit was filed controverting the stand, the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit will have to be accepted. Though this Court directed the respondents to produce a copy of the attestation form sent by the petitioner, an affidavit date Nil (December 2009) was filed by the respondent stating that those records could not be traced out as they were seven years old and they sought for further time. It is unnecessary to go into those records. 8. The present contention of the petitioner is that he is not involved in the criminal case on the basis of the subsequent charge sheet filed before the criminal court. In the present case, the short question that arises for consideration is whether at the time of the petitioner sending the attestation form, a criminal case was pending. Subsequently, when the character and antecedents were verified with the District Collector, the fact came to notice. The petitioner cannot escape from the fact that his name is not in the charge memo. It is an admitted fact that his name is in the First Information Report. 9. An identical question was dealt with by the Supreme Court in R.Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police, (2008) 1 SCC 660 . In paragraphs 10 to 13, it was held as follows: "10. Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed. 11. The question came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar wherein it was categorically held: (SCC p.606, para 3) “3. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed. 11. The question came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar wherein it was categorically held: (SCC p.606, para 3) “3. … The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted.” 12. Mr Prabhakar has relied upon a decision of this Court in T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre. The said decision has been rendered, as would be evident from the judgment itself, on special facts and circumstances of the said case and cannot be treated to be a binding precedent. 13. In the instant case, indisputably, the appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, we are of the opinion that question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise." 10. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.