JUDGMENT Petitioner participated in the se­lection process for the post of Constable in Central Reserve Police Force, ap­peared in endurance test on 18.02.2002 at Gulshan Ground, Jammu and was appointed as Constable and allotted Constable No. 035071749. He joined at CRPF Camp, Ban Talab, Jammu on 25.02.2002. 2. The respondents vide Order No. D.V.2/2005 16 E.C.11 dated 31.03.2005 terminated petitioners services, while his colleagues selected in the same selection process named in Para 3 of the petition were retained in service. 3. The petitioner questions the ter­mination Order dated 31.03.2005 on the grounds set out in the petition. 4. Respondents oppose the writ peti­tion on the ground that upon selection and appointment of the petitioner, a communication was addressed by the respondent-department to the Addi­tional Director General, CID, Jammu requiring him to verify the character and antecedents of the petitioner. It is pleaded that as per the report received from the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Jammu, a criminal case FIR No. 88/2000 under Sections 307, 326, 34/RPC, Police Station, Hiranagar was pending against the petitioner be­fore the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua on the date he participated in the selection process and was appointed as Constable. The petitioner in his Verification Roll, at the time of apply­ing for the advertised post, did not make mention of his alleged involve­ment in the aforesaid criminal case. Failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the true facts in his Verifica­tion Roll, according to the respondents, prompted them to terminate his ser­vice. It is insisted that the termination order is legal and justified and also in consonance with the provisions of Cen­tral Civil Services (Temporary Ser­vices) Rules, 1965. 5. Petitioner in his rejoinder while admitting that he was an accused in case, titled, State vs. Khem Raj and ors, under Sections 307, 326, 34 RPC on the date he applied for the post of Constable, participated in the selection process and was appointed, insists that Trial Court vide its judgment rendered on 31.3.2006 acquitted him of all the charges. It is pleaded that petitioner was wrongly implicated in the aforesaid criminal case and that his acquittal points to such an influence. The peti­tioner further pleads that his clean acquittal by the learned Trial Court of all the charges, should have persuaded the respondents from going for the ex­treme measure of terminating his ser­vice. 6. It is pleaded that petitioner was wrongly implicated in the aforesaid criminal case and that his acquittal points to such an influence. The peti­tioner further pleads that his clean acquittal by the learned Trial Court of all the charges, should have persuaded the respondents from going for the ex­treme measure of terminating his ser­vice. 6. I have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for the par­ties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lays much emphasis on acquittal of the petitioner. Reiterating the stand taken by the petitioner in his petition as also in his rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, it is argued that the facts and circumstances did not warrant ter­mination of the petitioners service. Learned counsel seeks to draw support from the law laid down in case, titled, Ram Kumar vs. State of U. P. reported in 2011 6 Supreme 23 (2011] 0 Air (SC) 2903. 8. In Ram Kumars case (supra), the appellant applied for the post of Con­stable in the year, 2006 and in his pro-forma of Verification Roll, he stated that no case was registered against him. However, as a matter of fact, a criminal case No. 275/2001 under Sec­tions 324/323/504 IPC was registered against him. Charge Sheet arising out of aforesaid FIR was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 18.07.2002. However, Sr. Superintendent of Police Ghaziabad cancelled the order of appointment on the ground that he had failed to disclose in his Verification Roll that a criminal case was registered against him in the year, 2001 at Police Station, Etawah. Order of acquittal dated 18.07.2002 in favour of Ram Kumar did not persuade the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad to maintain his selection/ appointment as Constable. It is, in these circumstances, that the Su­preme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated 08.08.2007 of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad and directed the respon­dents to take the appellant in service. 9. The facts of present case are mark­edly different from the facts of Ram Kumars case set out above. In Ram Kumars case, a criminal case was reg­istered against the appellant much be­fore advertisement notice was issued and four years prior to his selection and appointment. He responded to the Ad­vertisement Notice, participated in the selection process and was selected. He was admittedly acquitted of the charges few years before he applied for the ad­vertised post. 10. In Ram Kumars case, a criminal case was reg­istered against the appellant much be­fore advertisement notice was issued and four years prior to his selection and appointment. He responded to the Ad­vertisement Notice, participated in the selection process and was selected. He was admittedly acquitted of the charges few years before he applied for the ad­vertised post. 10. In the present case, the peti­tioner was admittedly facing trial on the charge of having committed of­fences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 34 RPC on the date he responded to the advertisement notice, he filled the Verification Roll, and was selected and appointed as Constable. The peti­tioner was terminated from service on 31.03.2005 when he was still accused before the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua. He earned acquittal vide judg­ment dated 31.03.2006 i.e. one year after his termination from the service. 11. In Ram Kumars case, appellant was neither involved in any criminal case, nor facing trial on the date he responded to the advertised notice. Pe­titioners case stands on different foot­ing in as much as, he was facing crimi­nal charges on the date he responded to the advertisement notice and there­after, selected and appointed as Con­stable. Viewed thus, the petitioner cannot draw any support from the law laid down in Ram Kumars case (supra). 12. It is important to note that peti­tioner in the present case has not been shown the door because he was con­victed or found guilty of the criminal charge. The reason that prompted the respondents to terminate petitioners service was his willful withholding of correct information in his Verification Roll. The acquittal of the accused after his termination or before his termina­tion in the service roll does not make any difference. Had the petitioner hon­estly disclosed in his Verification Roll that he was facing criminal charges in case FIR No. 275/2001, registered at Police Station, Hiranagar and thereaf­ter, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges, one could very well say that he had been honest and truthful and not withheld the information and that his acquittal should entitled him to be considered for the advertised post or retained in the force. 13. In the case of hand, the peti­tioner on his own admission did not disclose true information about his in­volvement in a criminal case. 13. In the case of hand, the peti­tioner on his own admission did not disclose true information about his in­volvement in a criminal case. The re­spondents cannot be compelled to have on the rolls of premier police force of the country a Constable found to have been dishonest and not truthful in his response to the questions set out in the Verification Roll. 14. The petitioner was on probation on the date he was terminated. The respondents have done well not to re­fer to any mis-conduct while terminat­ing his services in terms of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of 8 Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The termination order impugned, there­fore, is not stigmatic in character and on that ground also is not open to chal­lenge. 15. The legal proposition that emerges from the above discussion is that while failure on the part of an as­pirant for his enrollment in belt force, to mention his involvement in a crimi­nal case, in which he has been acquit­ted before advertisement notice was issued, may not be fatal to his right to be considered for appointment against advertised post, such failure cannot be condoned where a candidate selected and appointed omits to give information of his involvement in a criminal case in his verification Roll, on the date he responds to the advertisement notice and offers his candidature. 16. For the reasons discussed above, the petition is held to be bereft of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected CMAs (if any).