JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.7.2012 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1170/2011 directing reinstatement of the respondent/writ petitioner in service, the instant appeal has been filed. 2. We have heard Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Rajawat, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. In response to an advertisement issued during 2008-09 for appointment to the post of Constable (G.D.) with the Central Reserve Police Force, the respondent/writ petitioner offered his candidature, where after he appeared in the written examination, and on the conclusion of the selection process, was selected for the post. He was thereafter provided appointment on 23.1.2009, but his services were terminated soon thereafter on 20.7.2009. It transpired that the termination was in view of FIR No. 124/2002 lodged against him with the Police Station, Losal, District Sikar under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The records reveal that following the investigation of the above case, a charge-sheet was submitted only against one Ashok Kumar, Nanag Ram and Phooli Devi under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC. No charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent /writ petitioner. In the trial that followed, the accused persons therein were convicted, whereafter criminal appeal No.29/2007 was preferred by them, and eventually, the conviction was interfered with. 4. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, having regard to the format of the application in which he had applied for the post, there was no query about lodgement of any FIR and/or pendency of any investigation in a criminal case against the candidate concerned, and thus, there was no occasion for him to mention about the above FIR. After having unsuccessfully pleaded with the concerned authorities against termination of his services, he turned to this Court. 5. The appellants, in their reply, in essence, contended that as the respondent/writ petitioner did not disclose about filing of the FIR against him as required by Clauses 12(a) and (b) of the application form, he did suppress material facts bearing on his suitability, and thus, his services were rightly terminated. 6. Mr.Sharma has insistently urged that as the termination of the respondent's/writ petitioner's services had been a consequence of suppression of material facts by him, no interference therewith ought to have been have by the learned single Judge. 7. 6. Mr.Sharma has insistently urged that as the termination of the respondent's/writ petitioner's services had been a consequence of suppression of material facts by him, no interference therewith ought to have been have by the learned single Judge. 7. Clauses 12(a) and (b) of the application format referred to by the appellants in justification of the termination of respondent's/ writ petitioner's services, are quoted hereinbelow : " d & D;k vki dHkh fdlh vijk/k ds fy, fxjQ~rkj gq, gSa] ;k vki ij eqdnek pyk;k x;k gS ;k vki dks fgjklr esa j[kk x;k gS ;k vki dks fgjklr esa j[kk x;k gS ;k vkidks tekur ij NksM+k x;k gS ;k fdlh vnkyr }kjk vki ij tqekZuk fd;k x;k gS ;k nks"k fl) fd;k x;k gS ;k vkidks fdlh yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk ml fdlh ijh{kk izoj.k esa oafprA vik= Bgjk;k x;k gS ;k D;k fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ;k f'k{kk izkf/kdkj laLFkk }kjk fdlh ijh{kk ls oafpr fd;k x;kA fudy x;k gSa\ " (a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/ fined, convicted by court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any university or any other education authority Institution ? " [k & bl lR;kiu fpV~Bs dks Hkjrs le; D;k vkids fo:) fdlh vnkyr esa ;k fo'ofo|ky; esa ;k fdlh f'k{kk izkf/kdkj laLFkk esa dksbZ dsl py jgk gS\ ;fn ( d ) ;k ( [k ) dk mRrj gkWa gks rks eqdnek] fxjQ~rkjh] fgjklr] tqekZuk] nks"k] fl)] naM vkfn dk C;ksjk nsa vkSj crk,a fd ;g QkeZ Hkjrs le; vnkyr fo'ofo|ky; f'k{kk izkf/kdkjh ds ikl fdl izdkj dk dsl py jgk gS\ " (b) Is any case against you in any court or university or any other education authority/ Institution at the time of filling up of the 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/education authority at the time of filling in this form." 8. 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/education authority at the time of filling in this form." 8. As would be evident from the queries as above, the candidate concerned was required to disclose relevant facts bearing on his arrest/prosecution/detention/conviction/debarment /disqualification by any court of law for any offence and/or debarment/disqualification by any public service commission from appearing at its examination/selection or from taking any examination or rustication by any university or any other educational authority or pendency of any case in any Court/University/education authority. 9. Admittedly, though the aforementioned FIR was lodged against the respondent/writ petitioner, no charge-sheet had been submitted against him. He did not suffer any of the eventualities referred to hereinabove, and therefore, he did not disclose about the lodgments of the aforementioned FIR against him. It cannot thus be construed to be suppression of any material fact entailing termination of his services. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent/writ petitioner had been appointed on due selection on the basis of his proved suitability. A bare perusal of the order dated 20.7.2009 terminating his services, would indicate that the same had been in exercise of the powers under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Indubitably however, he did suffer this decision due to his perceived default in disclosing the factum of the FIR as was erroneously comprehended by the appellants to be necessary in response to the queries contained in Clauses 12(a) and (b) of the application format. 10. In the' above view of the matter, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the conclusion 'r horded by the learned single Judge. In our estimate, the termination of the respondent's/writ petitioner's services on the ground of suppression of material facts, is wholly untenable in law and in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Stay application also stands rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******