JUDGMENT : Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. CM 1932/2012 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 870/2012 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby his Original Application No. 2615/2009 was dismissed. By virtue of the said Original Application, the petitioner had challenged the order of penalty of disengagement from the muster roll dated 28.07.2009. 2. The petitioner was engaged as a peon-cum-AMR on the muster roll on compassionate ground by virtue of an order dated 07.07.2008. His engagement was subject to the verification of character and past antecedents and educational and caste certificates. The petitioner also had to submit an attestation form. The questions asked from him in the attestation form at serial No. 12 (i) (a), (b) and (c) were as follows:- “(a) Have you ever been arrested? Yes/No (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? Yes/No (c) Have you ever been kept under detention? Yes/No” To all these questions, as to whether he had ever been arrested, as to whether he had ever been prosecuted and as to whether he had ever been kept under detention, the petitioner answered 'No'. However, it is an admitted fact that he was in police custody from 29.05.2005 to 03.06.2005 and subsequently, he was in judicial custody for one year on account of his involvement in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 58/2005 under Section 363/306/302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is obvious that the petitioner had given false answers to the questions referred to above. Consequent thereupon, an in-house enquiry had been conducted, which confirmed the aforesaid facts. The petitioner was heard in-person, where he accepted the fact that he had filled the attestation form in the manner indicated above. However, he took the plea before the Tribunal that he did not know English and that he had got the form filled by someone else, who committed the mistake. 4. However, the Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the argument that the petitioner did not know English did not hold any water inasmuch as all the other questions had also been answered by the petitioner which were in English. 4. However, the Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the argument that the petitioner did not know English did not hold any water inasmuch as all the other questions had also been answered by the petitioner which were in English. The petitioner had also taken a plea that he was under a mistaken belief that inasmuch as he had been acquitted by the time he had filled in the attestation form, he was required to answer the questions mentioned above in the negative. This explanation was not accepted by the Tribunal. And rightly so, because each of the questions clearly referred to the applicant's entire past life. This is apparent from the use of the words “ever been arrested”, “ever been prosecuted” and “ever been kept under detention”. 5. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The Tribunal, in our view, rightly considered that the crucial issue was not with regard to his acquittal but with regard to the fact that he had given a false declaration in respect of his arrest and detention in connection with a serious criminal case such as that of murder. In any event, we see no perversity in the impugned order. As such, we cannot interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. This writ petition is dismissed.