JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. H. L. Maurya, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present petition has assailed an order dated 19-11-2012, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF Khatkhati, Assam, terminating the services of the petitioner invoking the provisions of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the Force) on 19-03-2012, as a Constable (General Duty), and was allotted to the 138 th Battalion of the Force, Assam. While undergoing training at ATC, Rangareddy, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner was brought to the Group Centre, CRPF Khatkhati, Assam, and thereafter, vide the order dated 19-11-2012, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. It is projected that the petitioner was not informed as to the reasons behind issuance of the said order dated 19-11-2012. The petitioner further projects that, basing on an RTI reply received in the matter on behalf of the petitioner, it was disclosed that the petitioner services was terminated as he was, during the verification of his antecedents, carried out after his enrolment in the Force, found to be involved in 2 (two) criminal cases. The petitioner has further projected that he had, while submitting his Verification Roll, on account of a misunderstanding arising in the matter, had answered in negative against the questions put, therein, as to whether the petitioner was involved in any criminal case. He submits that the said Verification Roll on being verified by the concerned authorities and it having come to light that there were criminal cases pending against the petitioner, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide the said order dated 19-11-2012. It is submitted that the appeals and revisions preferred by and on behalf of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the Appellate as well as the Revisional authority, thereby affirming the termination of services as affected in case of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. It is submitted that the appeals and revisions preferred by and on behalf of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the Appellate as well as the Revisional authority, thereby affirming the termination of services as affected in case of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. H. L. Maurya, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has at the outset submitted that at the time of institution of the 2 (two) criminal cases against the petitioner, he was a minor and accordingly was not in a position to appreciate the significance of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is on account of such ignorance that the petitioner, while filling up his Verification Roll had answered in negative with regard to the question about pendency of any criminal case against him. It is submitted that one of the 2 (two) criminal cases pending against the petitioner had resulted in his acquittal by the Trial Court prior to the enrolment of the petitioner in the Force, whereas, the other criminal case had also resulted in an acquittal of the petitioner, however, after he had joined his services. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a layman and only a matriculate was not in a position to understand the consequences which may arise out of such a non-disclosure of institution of criminal cases against him, in the Verification Roll so submitted in CRPF Form No.25. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent authorities had not issued to him any notice seeking his explanation in the matter prior to issuance of the order dated 19-11-2012. It is submitted that, had the petitioner been provided an opportunity, the matter could have been clarified by him and it could have also been brought on the record that the petitioner being a juvenile at the time of registration of the said criminal cases, the said the said proceedings were not maintainable against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order of his termination through the “Bihar State Ex Services League”. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order of his termination through the “Bihar State Ex Services League”. However, he submits that the authorities who had pursued the said appeal had not pursued the same properly and had further not properly advised the petitioner with regard to the manner in which such appeal was to be so preferred. He submits that the appeal so preferred on behalf of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the said appeal was not preferred under the signature of the petitioner in spite of communications being issued to the petitioner in this connection. It is further submitted that the person who was pursuing the appeal on behalf of the petitioner had submitted 2 (two) revision petitions before the Revisional Authority, however, the same also did not result in a favourable response from the authorities. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the said background facts, has submitted that the criminal cases instituted against the petitioner, was so instituted when the petitioner was a minor, having concluded in the acquittal of the petitioner, the non-disclosure of the said criminal cases by the petitioner in his Verification Roll, had lost its significance and the said aspect of the matter, although brought to the notice of the Respondent authorities, was not considered in its proper perspective. 7. In the above premises, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interference is called with regard to the orders impugned in the present petition with further direction to the Respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his services. 8. Per contra, Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the Verification Roll being received from the petitioner, the same was sent to the District Magistrate, Buxar, Bihar, for verification and on the verification report in this connection being received from District Officer, Buxar, Bihar, vide communication dated 27-07-2012, it was found that 2 (two) police cases being Rajpur P.S. Case No.84/2001 under Section 25 (1B)/26/27 of the Arms Act and Rajpur P.S. Case No. 86/2001 under Section 448/307/34 of IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, were registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, although, in the know-how of the pendency of the said criminal proceedings against him had made a false declaration in column 12 of the Verification Roll, wherein, he had answered in negative to the question with regard to pendency of criminal proceedings against him. It is submitted that the petitioner having suppressed the institution and pendency of criminal cases against him, the competent authority had vide order dated 19-11-2012, proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner basing on the stipulation contained in the Verification Roll in this connection. Learned CGC, further submits that no notice is called to be issued for effecting a termination under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965. 9. The learned CGC, submits that the termination of the services of the petitioner being so effected basing on the suppression/concealment of the fact of institution and pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner in the said criminal proceedings would be of no consequence. 10. With regard to the appeal preferred in the matter on behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the appeal/revision preferred on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority after due consideration. It is submitted that the subsequent appeal as filed by the petitioner in the matter on 02-06-2015, was also rejected and an intimation to this effect was already communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 08-05-2016. 11. In the above premises, it is submitted that the termination of the services of the petitioner having been so ordered basing on the misrepresentation made in the matter by the petitioner in his Verification Roll, such suppression being viewed seriously by the respondent authorities, the termination as effected in respect of the petitioner, herein, vide the order dated 19-11-2012, would not mandate any interference. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 13. It is an admitted position that the petitioner on his enrolment in the Force was required to fill up his Verification Roll in Form No.25. The petitioner in response to the questions as available in column 12 of the said Verification Roll with regard to the pendency of a criminal proceeding had submitted answers in negative. 13. It is an admitted position that the petitioner on his enrolment in the Force was required to fill up his Verification Roll in Form No.25. The petitioner in response to the questions as available in column 12 of the said Verification Roll with regard to the pendency of a criminal proceeding had submitted answers in negative. The petitioner had also answered in negative to a query put as to whether there was any case pending against him in any Court of law at the time of filling of his Verification Roll. From the materials on record, contrary to the disclosure made by the petitioner, he is found to be implicated as an accused in 2 (two) criminal cases being Rajpur P.S. Case No.84/2001 and Rajpur P.S. Case No. 86/2001. Both the said cases were so registered on 30-09-2001. 14. In Rajpur P.S. Case No. 86/2001, upon conclusion of investigation, a charge- sheet was filed and, therein, also the petitioner was implicated as an accused and he had stood Trial before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. The Trial Court, upon considering the evidences coming on record in Session Trial Case No.415/2006, had proceeded to acquit the petitioner along with other accused, therein. It is after the said acquittal of the petitioner that he was enrolled in the Force. However, when the petitioner had submitted his Verification Roll in the month of March 2012, the Trial in Rajpur PS Case No.84/2001 was pending. The petitioner was acquitted by the Trial Court in the case arising from Rajpur PS Case No.84/2001 only on 14-06-2013. Accordingly, the petitioner is found to have submitted wrong information in his Verification Roll with regard to the pendency of criminal proceedings against him. 15. From the materials brought on record, it is seen that after the petitioner had submitted his Verification Roll, the same was forwarded to the authorities at the native place of the petitioner for verification. The concerned authorities, upon verifying the particulars so forwarded, had reported before the authorities of the Force, that there were 2 (two) criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner when he was implicated as an accused. The said information coming on record, the respondent authorities had proceeded to issue the Order dated 19-11-2012, invoking the provisions of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965, and had proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner. The said information coming on record, the respondent authorities had proceeded to issue the Order dated 19-11-2012, invoking the provisions of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rule, 1965, and had proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner. The said termination is based on the disclosure of information received upon verification of the antecedents of the petitioner, after he had submitted his Verification Roll in the matter. 16. The purpose and utility of verification of a character and antecedents to judge the suitability of a person to a post need not be over emphasized. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors , reported in (2016) 8, SCC 471 , had observed that it is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment is made and that an incumbent should not have antecedents of such nature which may adjust him unsuitable for the post. 17. It is a settled position of law that proper and complete disclosure in applications for Government employment is not a simple procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity and public trust. Government posts attract hundreds and often thousands of applicants for a single vacancy, each competing under the same stated conditions. Scrupulous vetting of every candidate becomes imperative, and essential to ensure a level playing field and to protect the credibility of the selection process. When an applicant withholds information about his/her criminal antecedents, it undermines the process, by depriving the appointing authority of the opportunity to make a full informed assessment of suitability. While the law recognizes that non-disclosure, depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding circumstances, may not invariably be fatal to a candidate, it nevertheless remains a serious lapse. The gravity is significantly compounded when the non disclosure is repeated, as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects deliberate concealment. Such non disclosure strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes and taking of a stern view by the authorities. The said position gets further amplified when the recruitment is to a disciplined Force. 18. As noticed, hereinabove, the petitioner in his Verification Roll had submitted incorrect information. Such non disclosure strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes and taking of a stern view by the authorities. The said position gets further amplified when the recruitment is to a disciplined Force. 18. As noticed, hereinabove, the petitioner in his Verification Roll had submitted incorrect information. In the Verification Roll it was stipulated as follows; “The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government order”. It was also stipulated that “………. false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Verification Roll, comes to the notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated”. 19. It is seen that despite the clear stipulations as extracted, hereinabove, in the Verification Roll, the petitioner had submitted otherwise than the truth. The acquittal of the petitioner atleast in one of the 2 (two) criminal proceedings instituted against him being a subsequent development and at the time of filling up of the Verification Roll, the said proceeding being pending against the petitioner, and the stipulation as extracted, hereinabove, having made it clear that concealment of information would render the applicant ineligible/unfit for employment under the Government, what is the clincher is the status of the cases as disclosed at the time of filling of the forms. Accordingly, it cannot be disputed that at the relevant point of time of filling up of the Verification Roll, the petitioner admittedly had submitted incorrect and false information. 20. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the contention of the petitioner that the criminal proceedings so instituted against him, was instituted when he was minor and that further because of his ignorance he had not disclosed the correct information while filling up his Verification Roll. The said contention has been duly considered by this Court and this Court is of the considered view that none of the said consideration would justify the fact that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner had concealed relevant information. The said contention has been duly considered by this Court and this Court is of the considered view that none of the said consideration would justify the fact that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner had concealed relevant information. The factum that the petitioner had declared in negative to the question as to whether there were pending proceedings against him, shows his malafide intent and the same is in direct contravention of the disclaimer(s) given in the forms. The subsequent acquittal would not accrue any benefit to the petitioner. It is also a settled position in law that sympathy cannot supplant law. Accordingly, the said contention of the petitioner stands rejected. 21. For the reasons as assigned, hereinabove, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the orders impugned in the present writ petition would not mandate an interference. 22. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, the subsequent steps taken in the matter by the petitioner in preferring appeals/revisions and the contentions raised with regard to the same are not considered by this Court. 23. For the reasons cited, hereinabove, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.