JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J.: I.A. No.4642 of 2015 1. This present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 02 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring this Appeal. We therefore, condone the delay in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal No. 378 of 2015. 3. I.A. No. 4642 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 378 of 2015 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6828 of 2013 vide order dated 19th May, 2015, whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and, therefore, this appellant (original petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that no notice has been given, no chargesheet has been given, no procedure has been followed and hence, the order of termination of services of this appellant dated 31st August, 2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in: (a) (2000) 3 SCC 239 & (b) (2011) 4 SCC 644 On the basis of the aforesaid decisions to be read with Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1965), it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the services of the appellant cannot be terminated without giving any adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and any breach of principle of natural justice. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6828 of 2013 dated 19th May, 2015, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6828 of 2013 dated 19th May, 2015, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the appellant was appointed as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force with effect from 2nd May, 2012 and he was on probation and therefore, his services have been terminated during the period of probation vide order dated 31st August, 2013 under proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965 . 8. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that this appellant was also involved in criminal case which was registered as Criminal Case No. 454 of 2010 at Ballia Police Station (Uttar Pradesh), under Sections 147, 452, 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. These facts were suppressed, when he filled up the form on 3. the post of Constable and he get the appointment by playing fraud upon the respondents. 9. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the criminal case may resulted into acquittal or conviction, but, for the benefit suppressing a criminal case and that too in a writing, in the form to be filled up by this appellant before getting employment as a Constable tantamounts to fraud played upon the respondents as there is a deliberate suppression of material fact and even otherwise also, during the period of temporary service, as per proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965, the services of this appellant can be brought to an end by the payment of salary of notice period. Thus, it is termination simplicitor and not punitive in nature. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 10. Counsel appearing for respondents is relying upon a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 . On the basis of this decision, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that it is not material, whether the offence registered against this appellant was a major or a minor, but, the fact remains that he had suppressed the material facts when he filled up the form for the appointment on the post of Constable. On the basis of this decision, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that it is not material, whether the offence registered against this appellant was a major or a minor, but, the fact remains that he had suppressed the material facts when he filled up the form for the appointment on the post of Constable. These facts could not have been suppressed by him. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS 11. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) This appellant was appointed on the post of Constable in Central Reserve Police Force with effect from 2nd May, 2012. He was appointed on probation and Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, which reads as under: “5. Termination of temporary service.(1)(a) The services of a temporary Government Servant shall be liable to termination at 4. any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government Servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government Servant; ................................................................ …............................................................” (ii) A criminal case being Criminal Case No. 454 of 2010 was registered against this appellant which is pending for its trial. The allegation levelled against this appellant is under Sections 147, 452, 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code at Ballia Police Station. The chargesheet has also been filed in this case. Thus, as per the police investigation, there is an involvement of this appellant in criminal case. These facts were suppressed in supplying the information at the time of recruitment. (iii) It appears from the facts of the case that this offence especially under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable for seven years imprisonment. It is not a minor offence. (iv) It appears from the facts of the case that his services have been terminated after the payment of salary of notice period under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. (v) It appears that the respondents have all power and jurisdiction to terminate the services of this appellant. It is not a minor offence. (iv) It appears from the facts of the case that his services have been terminated after the payment of salary of notice period under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. (v) It appears that the respondents have all power and jurisdiction to terminate the services of this appellant. It has been stated in the counteraffidavit filed by the respondents in the writ petition in paragraph no. 4 that as per CRPF Form No. 25, especially para3 thereof (Verification Roll AnnexureB) if the fact stated in the said form found to be a false information and if there is any suppression of factual information in the Verification Roll comes to the notice of the respondents, at any time his services can be terminated. For the aforesaid criminal offence, false information was given that there is no criminal matter pending against him whereas, the aforesaid case is pending against this appellant even on today. (vi) In the appointment letter also, which is dated 29th March, 2012 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition), it has been pointed out, that if there any suppression of material fact is found out their services will be liable to be terminated. Moreover, the 5. services of this appellant was purely temporary in nature. (vii) It appears from paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the District Magistrate, Ballia, (UP) vide his Letter No. 4007/DA 2 Justice dated 29th January, 2013 has intimated that a criminal case being Criminal Case No. 454 of 2010 under the aforesaid Sections of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against this appellant. This is how the respondents came to know about the criminal case. Thus, it appears that this appellant has suppressed material facts and has given false information in the form to be filled up by him, in column no. 12 of CRPF Form No. 25 (AnnexureB to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition). This suppression of material fact and false information given by him is a deliberated attempt. Had there been only a blank form or had there been a blank left against column no.12, it may be a negligent approach of this appellant, but, against column no. 12 in the CRPF Form No. 25, he has clearly stated a word “No”. This suppression of material fact and false information given by him is a deliberated attempt. Had there been only a blank form or had there been a blank left against column no.12, it may be a negligent approach of this appellant, but, against column no. 12 in the CRPF Form No. 25, he has clearly stated a word “No”. This is a column about involvement in the criminal case. Thus, there is a deliberate attempt on the part of this appellant not only of suppression of material facts, but, also giving false information to the respondents. This is a fraud. To unearth a fraud it takes some time. When the District Magistrate, Ballia (Uttar Pradesh) wrote a letter, the respondents came to know about the correct facts. Meanwhile, this appellant continued to be a Constable and, therefore, his services have been terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1965. (viii) It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, as reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 , in paragraph nos. 12, 13, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 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 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.” 20. “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.” 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. 23. In R. Radhakrishnan v. DG of Police this Court held that furnishing wrong information by the candidate while seeking appointment makes him unsuitable for appointment and liable for removal/termination if he furnished wrong information when the said information is specifically sought by the appointing authority. 24. In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Government Order dated 2841958 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). 26. 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. (Emphasis supplied) (ix) Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision, the purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or the gravity of the offence nor to find out the ultimate result of a criminal case, but, such information is sought only to find out the character and antecedent of a candidate to find out his suitability to get the job or to continue in the government service. Suppression of material facts and to give false information itself tantamounts to moral turpitude. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. Suppression of material facts and to give false information itself tantamounts to moral turpitude. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. (x) Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2000) 3 SCC 239 and further relied upon a decision reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644 , which are factually different than the facts of the present case, as stated herein above. In one case there was a dispute about the termination in the simplicitor or punitive termination and in another case, it was about minor indiscretions and that too, the case was compromised. 8. These facts are the facts of the aforesaid reported decisions cited by the counsel for the appellant. They are materially different than the facts of the present case. The criminal case registered against this appellant cannot be treated as a minor indiscretion. Section 308 of Indian Penal Code fetches punishment upto seven years imprisonment. The appellant was working in a disciplinary force. When there is a specific information sought from the candidate, he had to supply the true and correct facts. In the facts of the present case, this appellant has suppressed the material facts and has given a false information coupled with the fact that he was appointed purely on a temporary basis and his services have been terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 by giving salary in lieu of the notice period. These facts make the present case different from the aforesaid two decided cases cited by the counsel for the appellant. Moreover, in these eventualities, there is no need of any notice or chargesheet or any other procedure to be followed because he was appointed on a temporary basis. These aspects of the matter have been properly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, uphold the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6828 of 2013 dated 19th May, 2015. 12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is thereby, dismissed.