Per M.M. Kumar, C J.;— 1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 10. 06. 2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the claim made by the appellant. It has been held that the order dated 05.01.2009 passed by the respondents terminating his services, did not suffer from any legal infirmity because he suppressed information regarding registration of a FIR wherein he was named as accused. Later on his character and antecedents were verified and it was found that he was one of the accused in case FIR no. 201.1 of 2003 registered under Sections 147, 354 and 323 RFC. The aforesaid information was communicated after verification of character and antecedents by the Inspector General of Police, CID, J&K, Srinagar vide letter No. CID/VB/06/06/8212-8332-Kup dated 13.08.2008. These facts were not disclosed by the appellant while filling up his character and antecedent roll on 26.01.2006 and he concealed the vital information. The order of termination was challenged before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was also rejected by the Inspector General of Police by holding that due process has been followed by the Commandant 184 Bn before passing the termination order. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from para 13 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus:- "In the present case as is evident from Verification Roll filled up the petitioner, the petitioner in reply to question regarding his prosecution, arrest etc. at any time before his recruitment gave his answer in negative. The answer furnished by the petitioner on verification was found to be correct. The failure on part of the petitioner to give the correct information amounted to furnishing false information within the meaning of Central Civil Services Rule 5 (1). The respondents No. 3 was thus competent to exercise powers under the aforesaid provision and order termination of the petitioner's service. The acquittal of the petitioner at a subsequent stage would be of no help to the petitioner for the simple reason that what is alleged against the petitioner is not whether he had actually committed an offence alleged against him but whether he has withheld a vital information while filling up the Verification Roll. The acquittal of the petitioner at a subsequent stage would be of no help to the petitioner for the simple reason that what is alleged against the petitioner is not whether he had actually committed an offence alleged against him but whether he has withheld a vital information while filling up the Verification Roll. The petitioner continue to be on temporary Government service on the date the order impugned in the petition was passed and thus his service were liable to be terminated under Rule 5 (1) CCS (TS) once the conditions laid down therein were satisfied. The petitioner in the circumstances cannot draw support from Raj Kumar v. Union of India and ors. 2009 (II) SLJ 594 : 2009 (1) JKJ HC-38, moreso, because the facts of the reported case are markedly distinguishable from the facts of the present case." 2. It is further appropriate to mention that the learned Single Judge has placed firm reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India and ors. v. Sukhen Chandra Das (2008) 17 SCC125. The aforesaid judgment was also in respect of a Constable enrolled in CPRF and appears to be directly applicable. 3. Mr. M.A Wani, learned Counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 . According to the learned Counsel the Supreme Court has laid down that offences like 147, 354 and 323 RFC were not to be considered serious offences and its non-disclosure would not disentitle the appellant to continue to hold the post of Constable in CPRF. He has emphasised that reformatory approach should be preferred giving a chance to the appellant to improve himself. Another submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is not a probationer and in fact is a confirmed employee. According to him a regular departmental enquiry alone could have resulted in passing of the termination order. 4. Mr. Another submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is not a probationer and in fact is a confirmed employee. According to him a regular departmental enquiry alone could have resulted in passing of the termination order. 4. Mr. S. A. Makroo, learned Assistant Solicitor General; has, however, argued that the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar's case has no application and the matter is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on which reliance has been rightly placed by the learned Single Judge, namely, Sukhen Chandra Das's case (supra). According to the learned counsel even letter judgment rendered in case of Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 103 , would be clear answer to the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Makroo has maintained that in Daya Shankar Yadav's case a Constable of CPRF was involved who has suppressed information and the order of his termination was upheld which was issued under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 14 (a) and (b) of the Central Reserve Police Force. Rules, 1955. Therefore these judgments are complete answer to the argument raised by Mr. Wani. 5. Having thoughtfully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their able assistance we are of the considered view that the appeal is without merit and does not warrant admission. 6. The Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (1955 Rules) have been framed under Section 18 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. Rule 14 of 1955 Rules provide that immediately after enrolment of a person in the CPRF, his character antecedents, connections and age must be verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. The mandate of the rule is that the Verification Roll must be sent to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner of the District of which the recruit is a resident. The Verification Roll is required to be in CRPF Form-25 and after verification the Roll is required to be attached to the character and service roll of the member of the Force. The Verification Roll is required to be in CRPF Form-25 and after verification the Roll is required to be attached to the character and service roll of the member of the Force. The CRPF Form-25 at the starting administers a warning in respect of following 3 points:- (i) Furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll would be a disqualification and is likely to render a candidate unfit for employment under the Government. (ii) If detained, convicted, debarred etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form the details should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the authority to who the verification Roll has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which, it will be deemed to be a suppressor of factual information. (iii) If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his service would be liable to be terminated." 7. A perusal of the aforesaid warnings would show that furnishing of false information or suppression of any information in the verification Roll would result in his disqualification and would render a candidate unfit for employment under the government. Similar warning had been administered if after riling Form 25 a person fails to communicate information that he has been detained, convicted or debarred etc. 8. The appellant in the present case was not involved in crime of serious nature. The allegations in the FIR reveal that he is alleged to have resorted to rioting and hurt under Section 147 and 323 RFC. More serious is the allegation under Section 354 that he used criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman. While filling up CPRF Form 25 concerning his character and antecedent he suppressed this fact, which is against Rule 14 (a) of the 1955 Rules. Similar question was raised before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav (supra). There also in the verification form column no. 12 (a) and (b) have been answered in negative by Daya Shankar Yadav, as has been done by the appellant in present case. The Verification Roll filled by the appellant (R-2) substantiate the aforesaid fact. Similar question was raised before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav (supra). There also in the verification form column no. 12 (a) and (b) have been answered in negative by Daya Shankar Yadav, as has been done by the appellant in present case. The Verification Roll filled by the appellant (R-2) substantiate the aforesaid fact. Both the columns 12 (a) and (b) are set put below which have been answered by the appellant on 26.01.2006 in negative:- "12 (a) Have you ever been arrested, 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/selections, or debarred from raking any examination/restricted 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 authority at the time of filling in this form." 9. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant has been appointed on temporary basis which is substantiated by the letter of appointment. In para 2 of the letter of appointment (Annexure L-1), it has been specifically recorded that appellant was offered the post on temporary basis which was likely to continue indefinitely. This factum is also similar to the one which was pointed out in case of Daya Shankar Yadav decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The judgment in Sukhen Chandra Das's case is also directly applicable to the facts of the present case, as has been rightly relied upon by the learned Single Judge. 10. The argument of the leaned counsel for the appellant based on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sandeep Kumar would not require any detailed consideration because in para 4 of the judgment it has been specifically found that the officer in that case had disclosed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case when he filled up the attestation form. The information was given at a belated stage yet apparently it made material difference for the Hon'ble Court to take a view different then the one taken in Daya Shankar Yadav's case and Sukhen Chandra Das's case. We are also not impressed with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the offences alleged to be committed by the appellant were not serious in nature. Once the appellant was involved in a case concerning noting and hurt under Section 147 and 323 RFC as well as use of criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman, then such a matter cannot be regarded as petty offence. More over in Sandeep Kumar's case there was voluntary disclosure by the officer at an appropriate stage before he could be detected of suppression. Still further Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Daya Shankar Yadav's case (supra) has laid down that even in a case where a Constable has been acquitted in a criminal trial, the High Courts cannot issue a direction obliging the authorities to accept such a person because appointment is to be made to a disciplined force where character and honesty are of utmost importance (See para 15 (c) of the SCC report). A Constable wears the uniform of the State and after advancing in his career he is entrusted with the investigation of serious crimes. Therefore, to take any lenient view would not be in the interest of the Central Reserve Police Force. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to reject the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The other argument would also not be sustainable because no order of confirmation has been produced nor any such order was passed by the respondents. The concept of automatic confirmation cannot invoked in the face of the rules applicable. Moreover no such argument was raised before the learned Single Judge. A new case is sought to be set up in the appeal which is wholly unwarranted. Accordingly, we find no substance in that ground as well. 11. For the reasons aforesaid this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 12. No costs.