Judgment In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, he has challenged the orders dated 7.4.2014 (Annex.1) and dt.7.5.2014 (Annex.2) and prayed that both the orders may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. As per the facts of the case, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Govind Garh, District Alwar in which after investigation, challan was filed but a compromise was arrived in between the complainant and petitioner for the offences under sections 323, 341 & 325 IPC but for the offence u/s.308 IPC, the trial court commenced the trial. An advertisement was issued by the respondent Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited for appointment on the post of Technical Helper and in pursuance of that advertisement, the petitioner was selected for the post of Technical Helpter and as a consequence of selection, he was appointed vide order No.173/36, the appointment was made in favour of the petitioner on 2.7.2012. The petitioner was given posting in the office of Sub Division Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Discom but upon police verification with regard to character of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Alwar informed vide communication dated 7.5.2013 to the respondent Nigam that in the criminal case registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Govindgarh, District Alwar for the offences u/ss.323, 341, 325 and 308/34 IPC, after investigation, challan was filed in the trial court. Upon receiving such information, the matter was considered by the respondents in the light of information and record. In the documents and information submitted by the petitioner, it is found that although fact of criminal case was disclosed in the affidavit that F.I.R. was filed against him for the offences u/ss.143, 323 and 341 IPC and case is pending in the court of A.D.J., Laxmangarh but it is nowhere disclosed that the challan was filed under Sec.308 IPC. Moreso, a specific statement was made in the affidavit that for the offences, compromise has already been arrived at between the parties. The respondent Department terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that he has concealed material fact for obtaining appointment, vide order dated 7.4.2014 and in pursuance of the said termination order, the petitioner was discharged by the Assistant Engineer (O&M), DISCOM Bagara, District Jalore vide order dated 7.5.2014. The respondent Department terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground that he has concealed material fact for obtaining appointment, vide order dated 7.4.2014 and in pursuance of the said termination order, the petitioner was discharged by the Assistant Engineer (O&M), DISCOM Bagara, District Jalore vide order dated 7.5.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a material information with regard to pendency of criminal case was given by the petitioner by way of filing an affidavit, as such, it cannot be said that any concealment was made by the petitioner with regard to pendency of criminal case, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that termination of petitioner's services on the ground of concealment of fact as per Condition No.17 of the appointment order is illegal because it casts a stigma upon him for securing appointment by improper means. The petitioner offered explanation with regard to registration of a criminal case against him and after due application of mind, appointment was given to the petitioner, therefore, order of termination is illegal. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that it is a case of not only concealment of fact but also of misleading the court because in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, information with regard to registration of a case under sections 143, 323 and 341 IPC was furnished, whereas in the writ petition, the petitioner himself stated that the case registered against him, was not only for committing offences under section 323, 341 IPC but for the offence u/s.308 IPC also and filed copy of the ordersheet of the concerned court to prove above fact. This fact itself is sufficient to say that petitioner has tried to satisfy this court that the compromise arrived between the parties for the offences u/ss.323, 341 & 325 IPC and due to non-compoundable offence u/s.308 IPC, no compromise was arrived in between the parties. According to respondents, it is a case of not only concealment of fact but it is a case of misleading this court as well. learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of this court towards recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Devendra Kumar Vs. According to respondents, it is a case of not only concealment of fact but it is a case of misleading this court as well. learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of this court towards recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC p.3325, in which it is held that it is the duty of the job seeker to give correct information in column meant for seeking information with regard to involvement in criminal case and if material information is suppressed by the candidates then he will not be entitled for appointment, therefore, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment for the simple reason that he has concealed material information with regard to criminal case registered against him and upon character verification, it is found that the petitioner was involved in the criminal case registered against him for offence under section 308 IPC. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of committing misconduct, therefore, the order impugned does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the whole pleadings and considered the documents annexed with the writ petition. Undisputedly, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for which an affidavit was filed by the petitioner before the respondents on 26.4.2012 in which following assertions were made, which reads as under: ^^’kiFk&i= eSa fd tqg:nhu [kku iq= Jh vklhu [kka mez djhc 25 lky tkfr eso fuoklh [ksMk dk ckl rglhy y{e.kx<+ ftyk vyoj ¼jktLFkku½ ‘kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwW fd%& ;g fd esjs fo:) iqfyl Fkkuk xksfoanx<+ esa eqdnek uEcj 23@2010 fnukad 6@02@2010 dks /kkjk 143] 323 o 341 vkbZ- ih- lh- ds rgr izdj.k ntZ gS tks fd ,- Mh- ts- U;k;ky; y{e.kx<+ esa yfEcr gSA ;g fd bls iwoZ eq>s fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; }kjk nf.Mr o vkjksfir ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g fd esjk pfj= mRre gS vHkh rd mijksDr izdj.k ds vykok vksj fdlh Hkh iqfyl Fkkus esa o U;k;ky; esa dsl nk;j ugha gqvk gSA ;g fd mijksDr dFku esjh tkudkjh esa lgh ,ao lR; gSA fdlh Hkh xyr tkudkjh o rF;ksa ds fy, eSa Lo;a mRrjnk;h jgwaxkA mijksDr ys[k lR; gSA bZ’oj esjk lk{kh gSA fnukad%& 26@4@2012 ‘kiFk drkZ** In the ordersheet dated 26.9.2013 of the court of Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) cum ACJM, Laxmangarh, Distt.Alwar (Annex.8), it was specifically observed by the court that challan was filed against the petitioner for the offences u/ss.323, 341, 325 and 308 IPC and out of these offences, for the offences u/ss.323, 341 & 325, compromise was arrived in between the parties but for the offence u/s.308 IPC, the trial will commence, meaning thereby the petitioner has tried to mislead the employer so as to obtain appointment but upon police verification, the Superintendent of Police, Alwar gave correct information with regard to pendency of a criminal case for offence under Section 308 IPC. It is also one of the facts that in ground (c) of the writ petition, there is pleading that petitioner was involved for the offence u/s.308 IPC, which is not compoundable, thus, for that offence only, the matter was not decided by the trial court and case is pending in the Hon'ble High Court. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of this court towards the fact that the petitioner has intentionally not informed the court that for the offence u/s.308 IPC, he was convicted and against that, appeal is pending. In view of above conduct of the petitioner, no relief can be granted because first of all, the petitioner concealed material fact of registration of a criminal case for the offence u/s.308 IPC before the respondents and further false affidavit was filed by him while concealing the fact that he is involved in criminal case for the offence u/s.308 IPC meaning thereby it is a clear cut case of concealment of fact as well as misleading the court. In the case of Devendra Kumar (supra), following adjudication has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it is held that non-furnishing of correct information of pendency of criminal case by the job seeker himself amounts to moral turpitude. Para 22, 23 and 24 of the judgment reads as under: “22. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Para 22, 23 and 24 of the judgment reads as under: “22. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Order dated April 28, 1958 relating to verification of the character of a Government servant, upon first appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish information about criminal antecedents of the new appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this regard, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary by the competent authority. The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material information or making false representation itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether than what is involved in the criminal case. 23. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. “Subla Fundamento cedit opus” a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340 ; and Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650 ). Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur). 24. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant suppressed material information sought by the employer as to whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case. Suppression of material information sought by the employer or furnishing false information itself amounts to moral turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in a criminal case. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant suppressed material information sought by the employer as to whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case. Suppression of material information sought by the employer or furnishing false information itself amounts to moral turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in a criminal case. In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.” In view of above, this court is of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner for not furnishing the material information in the application form itself amounts to misconduct of moral turpitude, therefore, it is held that no illegality has been committed by the respondents while terminating the services of the petitioner because he is guilty of committing concealment of material fact for obtaining appointment on the post of Technical Helper. In view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Resultantly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. So also, the stay petition is dismissed.