ORDER : Petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.08.2003 as contained in memo no. 336 by which he has been terminated from service as also the order of the appellate authority dated 09.02.2004 contained in memo no. 7 and order dated 24.09.2007 as contained in memo no. 1655, communicated vide order dated 13.05.2008 contained in memo no. 1634 by which review petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected affirming the order dated 29.08.2003, has approached this Court. 2. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as Constable on 15.07.2000 and after being appointed, he started discharging his duty. On 27.11.2002 a charge sheet was issued to him alleging therein that at the time of joining, the petitioner had not given declaration that he was involved in a criminal case being Manjhiaon Police Station case no. 15/2000 for the alleged offence under sections 147, 148, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. A regular departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner wherein petitioner had taken defence that he was having no knowledge of the pendency of the said criminal case and as such the entire allegation leveled against him regarding suppression of fact is absolutely incorrect. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case was instituted on 12.02.2000 although he was named but he was not having knowledge of the said case before the declaration which was given by him at the time of appointment. 6. Further submission has been made that he had been released on bail on 25.01.2001. Thus there is no misrepresentation or suppression of fact on behalf of the petitioner as such the entire allegation leveled against him is absolutely incorrect and dismissal from service by the respondent authority cannot be said to be justified. 7. On the other hand, submission made on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner had been appointed on 15.07.2000. F.I.R. was instituted on 12.02.2000 in which the petitioner was named. The F.I.R. was instituted for the offence under section 147, 148, 323, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which the charge sheet had been submitted on 25.04.2001 being charge sheet no. 31 of 2000. F.I.R. was instituted on 12.02.2000 in which the petitioner was named. The F.I.R. was instituted for the offence under section 147, 148, 323, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which the charge sheet had been submitted on 25.04.2001 being charge sheet no. 31 of 2000. The further submission has been made on behalf of respondents is that the plea taken by the petitioner that he has no idea about the institution of F.I.R. cannot be accepted because petitioner was named in the F.I.R. for the offence under section 147, 148, 323, 325 including section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the petitioner although made authentication in the authentication form by giving the fact about pendency of the criminal case but he initially with open mind has suppressed this fact from the authorities concerned and got appointment on 15.07.2000 is gross misconduct. 8. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, I find that there is no denial of the fact that the F.I.R. had been instituted against the petitioner being Manjhiaon Police Station case no. 15/2000 dated 12.02.2000 for the offence under section 147 148, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been appointed on 15.07.2000 that is much after the institution of F.I.R. Petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and charge sheet was submitted on 24.04.2001 after the petitioner being released on bail on 25.01.2001. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case being named in the F.I.R. prior to the appointment, which was made on 15.07.2000 and he had not given due declaration regarding pendency of the said criminal case and in process of verification of his character form the local police station came to the light of the authorities concerned that there was one case pending against him and as such the respondents authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed misconduct by suppressing the material fact for getting the benefit of appointment. 10. Admittedly petitioner was appointed on 15.07.2000 and F.I.R. was instituted on 12.02.2000 wherein the petitioner is named and as such it cannot be believed that the petitioner was not known about the pendency of the said F.I.R. 11. 10. Admittedly petitioner was appointed on 15.07.2000 and F.I.R. was instituted on 12.02.2000 wherein the petitioner is named and as such it cannot be believed that the petitioner was not known about the pendency of the said F.I.R. 11. It was the duty of the petitioner to bring all those aspects which were within his knowledge to apprise the authorities concerned and if anything has been suppressed by the candidate who is to be appointed in a government service the same will be said to be concealment of fact and will come under the category of misconduct and such person cannot be retained in service since from very first day, he is trying to mislead the appointing authorities. 12. It is settled proposition of law where an applicant gets appointed by misrepresenting the facts or by playing forgery upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Forgery avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. It is worth to see the judgment rendered in the case of Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 wherein at paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows: 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 law, “Fraud avoids 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.” 14. In A.P. State Financial Corpn. vs GAR Re-Rolling Mills and State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu this Court has observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith.“Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law.” 15. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Sahw Bros., it has been held as under:(SCC p. 553, para 20) “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Sahw Bros., it has been held as under:(SCC p. 553, para 20) “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 16. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh this Court observed that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has not lost temper over all these centuries. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana. 17. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi this Court held that “misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud”, and further held: (SCC p. 327, para 18) “18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.” 18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, observed as under: (M. Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6) “If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.” 13. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases as indicated hereinabove where dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. 14. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases as indicated hereinabove where dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. 14. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances, the authorities have taken note to the facts and the Enquiry Officer has come to the definite finding that the charge has been proved against the petitioner which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and accordingly the disciplinary authority has passed the order of dismissal from service. 15. The appellate authority as also the authority who has decided the memorial and its review have also considered all aspects of the matter and thereafter they came to definite finding of commission of misconduct by the petitioner and they have affirmed the order of dismissal dated 29.08.2003. 16. Since there is concurrent finding of the authorities in this case, sitting under article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court has got no jurisdiction to review the order of punishment as has been held by Apex Court in State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008), 15 SCC 657, wherein at para 18, it has been held that :- “18. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the enquiry officer is limited. The High Court, it is trite, would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment. ……” 17. In that view of the matter I find no merit in this case. Hence it is hereby dismissed.