JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Som Narain Mishra, learned standing counsel for the State-Respondents. Perused the record. 2. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2001 passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 33261 of 1992: Isar Ahmad v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and another, by which petitioner’s-appellant’s writ petition was dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-appellant was selected and appointed as Constable on 22.12.1991 after written and physical examinations. He joined at Kanpur on 22.12.1991 and was sent to Agra for training. While petitioner-appellant was undergoing training, he was served with a order dated 25.8.1992 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, terminating his services on the ground that petitioner was involved in criminal case No. 113 of 1990 under Section 304-B,IPC, upon making him entitled to one month’s salary under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. Aggrieved by said order, petitioner-appellant filed writ petition on the ground that the order of termination appears to be innocuous as the same was passed without holding any inquiry on the alleged participation of the petitioner in case crime No. 113 of 1990 under Section 304-B, IPC, P.S. Khanna, District Hamirpur. The writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge on 13.12.2001 holding that ground of termination is not the involvement of petitioner in criminal case but the suppression of fact that he was involved in a criminal case. Hence the present special appeal has been filed. 4. The writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge on 13.12.2001 holding that ground of termination is not the involvement of petitioner in criminal case but the suppression of fact that he was involved in a criminal case. Hence the present special appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the grounds that the impugned order of termination has been passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of Para 541 of U.P. Police Regulations as admittedly the procedure prescribed in Sub Para (2) was not followed; that learned Single Judge has completely ignored the opportunity contemplated under Sub Para (2) of Para 541 of U.P. Police Regulations, which provides that before terminating the services of probationer, the Superintendent of Police must provide relevant record with specific complaints and grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and then he should be called upon to show-cause as to why he should not be discharged from service; that the punishment of termination was highly disproportionate to the misconduct as such the order of learned Single Judge is wholly illegal and deserves to be set aside. 5. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant is that from perusal of report of the Superintendent of Police, Rural Area, Agra, it is established that petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground of his involvement in criminal case No. 113 of 1990 under Section 304-B IPC. The inquiry whether he is the same person namely Nisar Ahmad alias Bholu, who was involved in the criminal case, was made ex parte without issuing any notice or giving opportunity of hearing to him; that at the relevant time he gave an affidavit deposing that no criminal case has been registered against him nor he has been charge-sheeted in any case or any police investigation is pending against him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that when the petitioner-appellant was 16 years old in an anxiety to get service, he did not disclose the fact that a case in the name of Nisar Ahmad alias Bholu has been registered at Police Station-Khanna, District-Hamirpur. He was not involved in the said crime as his name is Isar Ahmad son of Sri Punnu Khan and not Nisar Ahmad as per High School Certificate. 6. He was not involved in the said crime as his name is Isar Ahmad son of Sri Punnu Khan and not Nisar Ahmad as per High School Certificate. 6. Per contra, learned standing counsel submits that the petitioner-appellant was found guilty of suppressing the fact and swearing a false affidavit which was required to be filed seeking employment in civil police that he was not involved in any criminal case. On receipt of complaint against the petitioner-appellant, a preliminary inquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was given opportunity and his statement was recorded. In his statement, petitioner-appellant admitted that he was granted bail on moving application by the name of Nisar Ahmad. It is also contended by learned standing counsel that after conducting detailed investigation and considering all the material on record, the Superintendent of Police, Agra came to the conclusion that petitioner-appellant is not a suitable candidate to be retained in service. 7. It may also be noted here that a person who enters police force for maintaining law and order in Society is required to be of un-impleachable character and antecedents. A person who has to enforce law has a greater duty to abide by the law and that the Courts will adopt a strict test of adherence of truthfulness, faithfulness and discipline in respect of such person. In the instant case, petitioner-appellant himself admitted that he was granted bail and that the case is pending in criminal Court. The Superintendent of Police, Rural Area, Agra after inquiry found that Nisar Ahmad alias Isar Ahmad alias Bholu are the names of same person and that petitioner had also been sent to jail in the same offence. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we are of the considered opinion that the ground of termination is not the involvement of the petitioner-appellant’s in criminal case but the suppression of fact that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain as to why he had not disclosed this fact in his affidavit. The petitioner was given an opportunity to explain as to why he had not disclosed this fact in his affidavit. In fact, he admitted that he had applied for bail in the case under Section 304-B I.P.C. Petitioner-appellant’s statement that he had not gone to jail was not found to be correct and thereafter his further statement that he is not Nisar Ahmad but Isar Ahmad was also found to be untrue on making inquiry from Police Station-Khanna, District-Hamirpur. Thus, a fact finding inquiry in which petitioner-appellant was associated and also provided with adequate opportunity to give detailed statement were sufficient to form a conclusion that he is not a fit person to continue in service. 9. For entry in civil police the competent authorities are bound to adhere to the strict standards and to take only those who are fit and competent both in character and integrity for discharging their disciplined duties in which honesty and integrity are of prime importance. The petitioner-appellant cannot be allowed to get employment by making false statement with regard to his bad antecedents. 10. For all the reasons stated above, we see no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in this special appeal. 11. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. ———————