JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Civil Police) against an advertisement issued in 2013, by the second respondent-U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. Petitioner was declared successful in physical and medical examination, however, he was not sent for training alongwith similarly situated candidates. On verification of the antecedent of the petitioner, it was informed by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, that the following cases are registered against the petitioner: Sl Case Under Police District Status No. Crime No. Sections Station 1 NCR 03/2013 323/504 IPC Ibrahimpur Ambedkar Nagar Pending 2 FIR 25/2013 436/506 IPC Ibrahimpur Ambedkar Nagar Pending 3 NCR 38/2015 352/504 IPC Ibrahimpur Ambedkar Nagar Pending 4 FIR 63/2015 392/411/506 IPC Aliganj Ambedkar Nagar Acquitted on 17.02.2017 5 FIR 73/2015 3/4 Act Goonda Ibrahimpur Ambedkar Nagar Acquitted on 17.03.2018 3. On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the last date for submission of the application form for the post in 2012, admittedly, all the criminal cases against the petitioner was pending and it was in the knowledge of the petitioner, however, the said information was suppressed and not disclosed in the relevant column of the form. The status of the cases is of a later date. 4. By the instant writ petition, petitioner has raised challenge to the orders dated 08.08.2016 and 01.08.2017, passed by the third respondent-District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, whereby, the representation of the petitioner, seeking a direction to the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, to take steps for submission of the verification report, has been disposed of forwarding the antecedents of the petitioner to the competent authority. A further prayer has been made that a direction be issued to the State-respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for training, pursuant to the Government Order dated 28.04.1958. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the writ petition to prayer clause- (i) as considerable time has since lapsed and the petitioner, at this stage, cannot be sent for training. In other words petitioner seeks quashing of the antecedents forwarded by the District Magistrate to the employer. 6. It is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had suppressed the criminal cases pending against him on the last date of submission of the application form for the post. In other words petitioner seeks quashing of the antecedents forwarded by the District Magistrate to the employer. 6. It is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had suppressed the criminal cases pending against him on the last date of submission of the application form for the post. The criminal cases noted herein above are serious offences and in any case, it is the discretion of the employer as to whether to offer appointment to the petitioner having regard to the pending criminal cases. 7. In the case of Jainendra Singhv. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748 , in para 29.4, Supreme Court has observed and held that “a candidate having suppressed material information and/ or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services. In para 29.6, it is further observed that the person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service. In para 29.7, it is observed and held that “the standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.” 8. In the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136 ,Supreme Court held that: 9. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.” 10. The police force, a disciplined force, even if, the candidate is acquitted or discharged in criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to assess, whether, the candidate is completely exonerated in the case on merit and whether his appointment poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied, at this stage, in the event, the impugned communication of the third respondent recording therein the criminal antecedents of the petitioner is set-aside. He further submits that in the event of the communication not being quashed, that would have an adverse impact on future appointment of the petitioner. 12. The submission, in my opinion is misconceived and unfounded. In future appointments petitioner is bound to disclose all the criminal cases lodged against him, whether, convicted or acquitted. The district authorities are bound to inform the employer about the antecedents of the petitioner, the lodged criminal cases against the petitioner would always be reflected in the report, even upon acquittal. It is upon the employer to consider whether having regard to the criminal cases, even upon acquittal, petitioner is fit for appointment. 13. In Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103 , Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents. It is upon the employer to consider whether having regard to the criminal cases, even upon acquittal, petitioner is fit for appointment. 13. In Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103 , Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents. It is observed and held that the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents is to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post. It is further observed that when an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can lead to any of the following consequences: (SCC pp. 11011, para 15) “15. … (a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed on probation, discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which he was involved. (b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarant's fitness for employment, or where the declarant had been honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment. (c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on verification it is found that the answers were false, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression or nondisclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant. This is because when there is suppression or nondisclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant. (d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations in the verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a) or (b) above.” 14. Thereafter, it is observed and held that an employee can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case). 15. In para 13, of the report Supreme Court observed and held as under: “13. In Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 , though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to nondisclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in para 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.” 16. Recently, the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs. Chetan Jeff, Civil Appeal No.3116 of 2002, decided on 11 May, 2022, upon considering the precedents, affirmed the decision of the authority (employer) in declining appointment on the post of Constable as the candidate had suppressed the information of pending criminal cases. The Court observed and held that acquittal or benefit of Probation of Offenders Act would not be sufficient to appoint the candidate on the post of Constable. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the proposition of law and precedents, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. 18. No cost.