JUDGMENT By the Court.—The State Government has filed this special appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16 October 2014. The respondent was selected as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary of the State and was sent for training. The police verification revealed that two First Information Reports, namely, Case Crime 216 of 1998 under Sections 308, 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Case Crime 174 of 1998 under Sections 324, 323 and 504 of the IPC, were registered in which the respondent had been named. In both those cases, admittedly, final reports have been submitted on 2 August 1998 and 30 May 1998 respectively and the respondent was found not to have been involved in those offences. Charge-sheets were however filed in respect of the other accused. A police verification report was submitted on 19 September 1998, which was to the following effect : “ ^^fjiksVZ Fkkuk Hkksxkao] tuin&eSuiqjh fo"k;% tkap ih0oh0vkj0 ua0&158@98 Jh vpy flag lu@vkWQ Jh jke cju flag fuoklh ua0 nhik Fkkuk Hkksxkao tuin&eSuiqjhA egksn;] fuosnu gS fd ih0oh0vkj0 ua0&158@98 Jh vpy flag lu@vkWQ Jh jke cju flag fuoklh ua0 nhik Fkkuk Hkksxkao tuin&eSuiqjh dk ewy fuoklh gS blds fo:) Fkkuk gktk ij eq0v0 la[;k&174@98 /kkjk&324@323@506 vkbZ0ih0lh0 o eq0v0la0&216@98 /kkjk&308@323@504 vkbZ0ih0lh esa uketn vfHk;qDr vpy flag FkkA foospuk esa funksZ”k ik;k x;kA okn ns[kus esa jftLVj ua0&8 ij eqRtkZ , ,l o vpy flag ds Hkh eqdnek iathd”r gq;s ikVhZ canh dh otg ls gq;s gSaA pky&pyu Bhd gSA ds :i esa izsf’"r gSA ,l0,l0ih dh vk[;k ds vuqlkj bldk pfj= Bhd ik;k x;kA g0@viBuh; lsukuk;d NBh okfguh ih0,0lh0 g0@viBuh; esjBA 19-9-98A^^ 2. On 29 September 1998, a letter was written by the Commandant of 6 Battalion, PAC Meerut to the District Magistrate recording that the respondent had been found not involved and to be innocent during the course of the police investigation. On 22 October 1998, a report was submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, stating that on investigation it had been found that the respondent had been falsely implicated in the incident and that his conduct and character were good. On 24 October 1998, the District Magistrate responded to the communication of the Commandant dated 29 September 1998. On 24 October 1998, the District Magistrate responded to the communication of the Commandant dated 29 September 1998. Placing reliance on the report of the Police Station dated 22 October 1998, the District Magistrate recorded that the respondent had not been found to be involved in any offence and that he had been falsely implicated in the criminal cases. Moreover, it was stated that the conduct and character of the respondent were good. 3. The selection and appointment of the respondent was cancelled by the State on 6 March 1999 on the ground that on 6 September 1998, he had submitted a false affidavit to the effect that no criminal case disclosing a cognizable or non-cognizable offence had been registered against him whereas, as a matter of fact, two first information reports had been registered against him. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of his appointment in 1999. The writ petition was eventually taken up for hearing and final disposal and has been partly allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 16 October 2014. The learned Single Judge has set aside the cancellation of the appointment of the respondent and has directed reinstatement in service. However, since nearly 16 years had elapsed, in the meantime, the State has been directed to assess the fitness of the respondent for performing field duties and if he is found not to be fit for field duty, he has been directed to be assigned work commensurate with the conditions of service for the post. Back wages have been denied. 4. In response to the petition, a counter-affidavit was filed by the Assistant Commandant of 6 Battalion of the PAC, Meerut. Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit sets out the case of the State that the respondent had failed to disclose registration of the two FIRs while making a statement on affidavit that no case was pending against him. Significantly, it was stated on behalf of the State in the aforesaid paragraph that in both the criminal cases, the respondent had been granted bail. The learned Single Judge had allowed the Standing Counsel to seek instructions specifically on this aspect. The instructions received by the Standing Counsel on 14 October 2014 were placed before the Court and indicated that the respondent had, as a matter of fact, never applied for bail at all. The learned Single Judge had allowed the Standing Counsel to seek instructions specifically on this aspect. The instructions received by the Standing Counsel on 14 October 2014 were placed before the Court and indicated that the respondent had, as a matter of fact, never applied for bail at all. Admittedly, the statement on affidavit by the State that the respondent had been granted bail was found upon verification by the learned Single Judge to be untrue. This assumes significance because, in the affidavit which the respondent had filed in response to the counter-affidavit, he has specifically set up the plea that he was unaware of the fact, when he filed an affidavit in connection with his employment in the PAC, of the registration of the two FIRs. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on “the admitted fact” that the respondent was not aware about the registration of the earlier two criminal cases against him. Besides, the learned Single Judge held that nothing was found against the respondent during the course of the investigation, resulting in the filing of the two final reports, all of which was prior to the selection of the respondent in the PAC. These reports were accepted by the competent Court. In this view of the matter, the order of cancellation of the appointment was quashed and the petition was allowed in the terms noted earlier. 5. There can be no doubt about the first principle of law that a person who seeks appointment to a public service is duty bound to make a full and complete disclosure of all material facts having a bearing on his suitability. An applicant is duty bound to disclose all facts pertaining to his antecedents, since they would have a bearing on his suitability, for appointment. Particularly where a candidate seeks employment in a uniformed force, criminal antecedents are a material circumstance which would have a significant bearing on his or her suitability for appointment. A concealment of material facts would, therefore, dis-entitle such a person to appointment, and if an appointment has been obtained on the basis of a material suppression, the State would be justified in terminating the appointment. 6. The above principles are well-settled. A concealment of material facts would, therefore, dis-entitle such a person to appointment, and if an appointment has been obtained on the basis of a material suppression, the State would be justified in terminating the appointment. 6. The above principles are well-settled. The real issue in the present case is whether there was anything to indicate that the respondent had made a statement which was false to his knowledge or had suppressed facts which he knew when he applied for selection. The material facts are not in dispute. Two first information reports had been filed in which the respondent had been named. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the respondent was innocent and that he had been falsely implicated. Final closure reports were submitted on 2 August 1998 and 30 May 1998 respectively. Thereafter, during the course of the police verification, the registration of the two FIRs, the course of the investigation and the fact that the respondent was found to have been falsely implicated, were all matters which were duly considered. It was found that the respondent was innocent and his conduct and character were beyond reproach. The sole basis on which the State sought to impute knowledge of the registration of the two FIRs at Police Station Bhogaon in district Mainpuri was on the basis that the respondent had applied for bail. Before the learned Single Judge, instructions were called on this aspect and written instructions were placed on the record by the Standing Counsel to the effect that the aforesaid statement made in the counter-affidavit filed by the State was found to be untrue and as a matter of fact, the respondent had never applied for bail. This aspect is also conceded before the Court in the present proceedings. No material was produced before the learned Single Judge to impute even prima facie, knowledge about the registration of the FIRs to the respondent. In the special appeal, alongwith the stay application, reliance was sought to be placed on a statement alleged to have been recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC of Jugendra Singh, the brother of the respondent, who purports to state that the respondent was residing with him at Muzaffarnagar; that he had been falsely implicated due to group enmity in the village and that he was free of any wrong doing. Knowledge was sought to be imputed to the respondent on the basis of a statement made by his brother under Section 161 of the CrPC. There is no reason or justification why this was neither mentioned in the counter-affidavit or at any subsequent stage when the matter remained pending before the learned Single Judge for nearly 15 years. That apart, the statement on which reliance has now been placed for the first time in appeal would constitute a rather tenuous link to establish or impute knowledge to the respondent of the pendency of two FIRs in Mainpuri. Even the statement indicates that the respondent was residing at Muzaffarnagar with his brother, where he was studying. 7. Having therefore carefully considered the conspectus of facts in the present case, we are of the view on the balance that the interference of this Court in a special appeal would not be warranted. Another fact on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge is that one of the persons who was named as accused in the FIR, is Shailendra Kumar Tripathi. Shailendra Kumar Tripathi was also selected alongwith the respondent and his appointment was also cancelled. Shailendra Kumar Tripathi was charge-sheeted and acquitted in the criminal case. His writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 7 December 1999 (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17670 of 1999). A Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12 January 2001 [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 9253 of 2000] against the special appeal judgement which had confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent was admittedly not even charge-sheeted, since the investigation had revealed that he was falsely implicated due to enmity. 8. The learned Single Judge has carefully weighed the equities and has declined to issue an order for the payment of back wages. Having due regard to the fact that a period of 16 years elapsed in the meantime, the appellants have been permitted to medically examine the respondent for fitness. In this view of the matter, the special appeal would not warrant interference since the approach and findings of the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any error. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ——————