Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
1.Heard learned standing counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the claimant respondent and perused record.
2.According to petitioners' counsel, the claimant respondent was selected for the post of Constable in the year 2006. He, on 8.6.2006, filed an affidavit that in case it is found that declaration given by him, is incorrect, appropriate action may be taken against him. While filing affidavit, it was stated by the claimant respondent that no criminal case was pending against him in any court of law. It appears that later on, it was found that an FIR was lodged against the claimant respondent under Section 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC on account of certain incident occurred in the college namely, Krishna Inter College, Baghpat. The investigating officer submitted final report which was accepted by the court concerned. The claimant respondent after completion of training, resumed duty on the post of Constable. Later on, it came to knowledge of the Superintendent of Police concerned, that FIR was lodged against the claimant respondent hence, he committed breach of trust while filing affidavit concealing the fact at the time of recruitment. Relying upon the claimant respondent's affidavit, services of the claimant respondent were terminated and the appointment letter was cancelled by the order dated 2.9.2007 which was subject matter of dispute before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal.
3.Before the Tribunal, the claimant respondent took plea that at no stage, he was made aware with regard to lodging of FIR, nor he was examined in connection with the said criminal case, nor he was informed about any case having being registered against him.
4.The Tribunal while allowing the claim petition, recorded a finding that since the police submitted final report and the claimant respondent took a plea that he was not aware nor was made aware with regard to lodging of FIR, there appears to be no good ground to terminate services of the claimant respondent. The Tribunal noted that since the investigating officer while submitting final report, recorded a finding that no incident happened in the College campus on 25.11.2001, hence no criminal case is made out against the claimant respondent. Accordingly, the final report was submitted before the court. It has been stated that the claimant respondent had not applied for bail nor he was arrested. Learned standing counsel also could not bring any order on record which may indicate that the claimant respondent approached the court for bail in criminal case. It appears that the FIR with regard to incident in the college, was lodged in which police submitted final report. Since the police made no effort to arrest or approach the claimant respondent for arrest, he has filed the said affidavit. The pleading of claimant respondent seems to be correct. Learned standing counsel could not bring on record which may show that claimant respondent applied for bail in the competent court.
5.Learned standing counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 AIR SCW 1126: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav. In the case of Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), undisputed fact was that criminal case registered under Section 323, 341, 294, 506-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC, was pending and the respondent of that case, filled up the attestation form. The facts and circumstances, are entirely different so far as the present case is concerned. In the present case, though, FIR was lodged but the police submitted final report which according to the learned standing counsel, was accepted by the court concerned and no arrest was made nor bail application was moved by the claimant respondent. The things would have been different had the claimant respondent been arrested or he would have applied for bail in the criminal case. Once, FIR loses its sanctity and in ignorance of all these facts, in filing affidavit to the effect that no FIR was lodged nor criminal case was pending, nor the claimant respondent applied for bail, seems to be bona fide and it cannot be treated a case, where the claimant respondent has tried to conceal the fact.
6.Learned counsel for respondent had placed reliance on a case reported in AIR 2008 SC 1083: State of Haryana & others. Vs. Dinesh Kumar, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court on account of acquittal in criminal case, held that information communicated by the candidate, does not suffer from any substantial illegality. Relevant portion of the said judgment, is reproduced as under:
"29. ... The position would have been different, had the person concerned not been released on bail. We would in the facts of these cases, give the benefit of a mistaken impression, rather than that of deliberate and wilful misrepresentation and concealment of facts, to the appellants in the second of the two appeals as well, while affirming the view taken by the High Court in Dinesh Kumar's case."
7.Thus, in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra), the person concerned, was arrested and released on bail and later on, the case resulted into acquittal. The present case seems to stand on a better footing than the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra). We are of the view that the Tribunal has dealt with arguments advances by the parties counsel in a just and fair manner based on sound principle of law, and the judgments relied upon various cases of this Court and Apex Court. The impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal does not seem to suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The writ petition is devoid of merit.
8.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.