Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the time of making application under the advertisement no.01/2010 for appointment as Constable petitioner did not disclose that there were criminal case pending against him being Daltonganj (Satbarwa O.P.) P.S. Case No.332 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 1475 of 2008. Petitioner was subsequently appointed on the post of Constable after clearing recruitment tests on 30th June, 2012. However, during the verification of his credentials and the declaration made in the said application it was revealed that two criminal cases being Daltonganj (Satbarwa O.P.) P.S. Case No.332 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No.1475 of 2008 and Sadar P.S. Case No.432 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.1793 of 2010 were pending against the petitioner. In terms of Rule 673(Ka) of Jharkhand Police Manual, petitioner was issued charge sheet and his services were terminated by the order dated 10th June, 2013 vide Annexure2 bearing Memo No. 2156 issued by S.P., Garhwa. Petitioner's appeal has thereafter again been rejected by D.I.G., Palamau Range, Daltonganj vide Annexure-3 by the order dated 23rd October, 2013 bearing Memo no. 4238. 3. Petitioner's contention is that such unintentional omission in the declaration form by the petitioner should have been ignored by the respondent by taking lenient view as has been held in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others Versus Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011)4 SCC 644 . It is submitted that both the cases have been compromised and the petitioner has been acquitted from the same. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment rendered in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2010)2 SCC 169 . In the said case the termination was made without any notice or enquiry of the said employee after 7 long years when the Apex Court found that constitutional safeguard under Article 311 were required to be observed. Claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents who have stated that petitioner failed to disclose the essential material facts in the declaration at the time of making the application for appointment about pendency of any criminal case against him. He also managed to obtain character certificate due to mistake of Police Department. 4. Claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents who have stated that petitioner failed to disclose the essential material facts in the declaration at the time of making the application for appointment about pendency of any criminal case against him. He also managed to obtain character certificate due to mistake of Police Department. 4. However, during further verification of the credentials of the petitioner on the declaration, it came to their knowledge that he was facing the aforesaid criminal case at the time of his application by making false declaration. Thereafter, respondents have chosen to invoke the provisions of Rule 673 (Ka) and after due enquiry and after giving opportunity to the petitioner passed the impugned order of termination of his service on the same ground of having suppressed vital information at the time of seeking employment. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having regard to the aforesaid materials on record it is observed at the outset that a declaration in an application form relating to pendency of a criminal case against an interested candidate is not to judge the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of the criminal case rather for the purposes to judge the character or the antecedent of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. 6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aforesaid issue in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 after consideration of several other earlier decision on the points are quoted hereunder:- 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 if 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. In fact, the information sought by the employer if 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 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. v. 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. Shaw Bros., it has been held as under: (SCC p. 553, para 20) “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised 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 wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. 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 wilfully 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.” The said judgment was reconsidered and approved by this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav. 20. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu this Court examined a similar case, wherein, employment had been obtained by suppressing a material fact at the time of appointment. The Court rejected the plea taken by the employee that the form was printed in English and he did not know the language, and therefore, could not understand what information was sought. This Court held that as he did not furnish the information correctly at the time of filling up the form, the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case registered against him or the nature of offences were immaterial. “The requirement of filling Columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form” was for the purpose of verification of the character and antecedents of the employee as on the date of filling in the attestation form. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedent of the employee in relation to his continuation in service. 24. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Government Order dated 28.4.1958 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. 25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit 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. Major General Madan Lal Yadav and Lily Thomas v. Union of India.) Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur). 7. The present case is distinguishable from the case of Sandeep Kumar supra. In the said case, after enquiry it was noticed that the said person had committed certain indiscretion at the age of 20 years in relation to criminal case under Sections 324/34 of the I.P.C. and had concealed his involvement in the criminal case. In the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh supra Hon'ble Supreme Court held that suppression of aforesaid vital information such as pendency of a criminal case, disentitles person concerned to claim any right on the basis of such an employment. In the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Hon'ble Supreme Court found that order of termination had been passed without following principles contained under Article 311 of the Constitution of India after several years. In the present case, however petitioner sought employment under advertisement no.01/10 and the cases were pending since 2008 or 2010 which were not mentioned by him in the declaration form. However during course of verification of his own application the same were detected. In the present case, however petitioner sought employment under advertisement no.01/10 and the cases were pending since 2008 or 2010 which were not mentioned by him in the declaration form. However during course of verification of his own application the same were detected. Thereafter, on issuance of charge sheet and conclusion of disciplinary enquiry after giving opportunity to him the impugned order of punishment has been passed which does not seem to suffer from any illegality or infirmity in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar (supra). 8. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.