JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.6.2006 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, whereby petitioner was dismissed from services. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner applied for the post of constable, civil police, pursuant to the notification dated 21.1.2006. In the affidavit filed along with the application, original petitioner made statement that no criminal case was registered against him and he was never prosecuted. After due recruitment process, petitioner was issued appointment letter on 10.4.2006. It was specifically stipulated in the appointment letter that petitioner was being appointed purely on the temporary basis and if anything adverse was found against the petitioner in the character verification, appointment letter would be revoked and his services would be terminated. 3. On the verification, it was found that one criminal case being Case Crime No. 17 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Section 147, 324, 504 and 506 IPC was registered against the petitioner with P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar. After investigation, chargesheet was also submitted against the petitioner. Criminal case was ultimately decided by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide judgment dated 26.4.2006 and petitioner was acquitted because of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties. 4. Having received the character verification report from P.S. Laksar to the above effect, impugned order was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar terminating the services of petitioner and revoking the appointment letter issued in favour of petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, original petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 , in paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, has observed as under :- “12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer is not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer is not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. 13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. “Fraud avoid all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath.) In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley the Court observed without equivocation that : (QB p. 712) “…No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.” 6. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, since petitioner made misrepresentation and suppressed the important fact about the registration of the criminal case against him, therefore, it would amount to getting employment by playing fraud on the State. Consequently, appointment so obtained by petitioner was rightly revoked and petitioner was rightly dismissed from the service by the competent authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar. 7. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.