1 CGHC010036662021 2026:CGHC:33011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 862 of 2021  Satya Prakash Yadav Shri Man Singh Aged About 26 Years Posted As Constable In 2nd Battalion, Sakari Bilaspur R/o Village- Sikhara, Tahsil And Police Station- Matsaina, Districe Firozabad, Civil And Revenue Districe Firozabad Uttar Pradesh, District : Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director General Of Police Home (Police) Department, Raipur, Districe Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Additional Director General Of Police Battalion, Police Head Quarter New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Commandant 2nd Battalion, Sakari, Bilaspur Tah. And Districe Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Adv. along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 2 30.7.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs :- 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to quash the impugned departmental appellate order dated 02.07.2018 ( Ann .P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 and direct the Respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service benefit. 10.3 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.4 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (GD) on 7.6.2013 in Eighth Battalion, Rajnandgaon. Prior to his appointment, petitioner submitted character verification form on 28.5.2013 and in its Column No. 12, he declared that he was never arrested by the police and no criminal case was pending against him. He also declared that he was never convicted by any criminal court. Subsequently, services of the petitioner were terminated by Commandant, Second Battalion, Sakari Bilaspur vide order dated 31.12.2016 on the ground that petitioner concealed criminal antecedents in Column No. 12 of character verification form. Petitioner preferred departmental appeal before Director General Of Police, State of Chhattisgarh and same was dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2018. 3 3) An FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 28.1.2013 for commission of offence punishable u/s 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Matsiana, Firozabad (U.P.). Police filed charge-sheet before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad on 27.7.2013 and the said Court took cognizance and issue summons to the petitioner directing presence of petitioner and other co-accused person(s). The summons was served upon petitioner on 11.6.2014, thereafter he appeared before the Court and participated in the proceeding. Finally, he was convicted and sentenced u/s 326, 506 and 34 of IPC vide judgment dated 6.7.2015. Thereafter, petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence. The appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 13.1.2016 and petitioner was acquitted. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (GD) on 7.6.2013 and prior to said date, he submitted character verification form on 28.5.2013 wherein he disclosed that he was never arrested by the police and no criminal case was pending against him at that point of time. He further submits that after submission of character verification form, petitioner was served with summons by the learned criminal court only on 11.6.2014, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to disclose the factum of pendency of criminal case and thus non-disclosure of pendency of criminal case or registration of 4 FIR was not willful and deliberate. He contends that petitioner was acquitted by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 13.1.2016 but the disciplinary authority passed the order of termination without affording opportunity of hearing and said decision was maintained in the departmental appeal. He further contends that action on the part of respondent authorities is per se illegal and the orders impugned deserve to be quashed. 5) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 28.1.2013 and this fact was within the knowledge of petitioner therefore he was under obligation to disclose the same in the character verification form submitted on 28.5.2013. He further submits that when petitioner was served with the summons, he should have communicated this fact to the superior authorities but he kept mum therefore disciplinary authority rightly issued the termination order on the ground of non- disclosure of criminal antecedents and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7) Admittedly, petitioner participated in a recruitment process and was subsequently selected for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) and appointment order was issued on 7.6.2013. Prior to that date, petitioner submitted character verification form wherein he failed to disclose criminal antecedent in Column No. 5 12. In this petition, the petitioner has assigned reasons to the effect that on 7.6.2013 neither any criminal case was pending against him nor was he ever arrested by the police authorities therefore he answered the query marked in Column No. 12 with response “NO”. Also, he was never convicted by any criminal court therefore he again answered the query in this regard with response “NO”. 8) Pertinently, petitioner submitted character verification form on 28.5.2013 whereas police filed the charge-sheet on 27.7.2013 and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad issued summons on 11.6.2014 therefore in my opinion, there was no occasion for the petitioner to disclose the factum of arrest or pendency of criminal case in Column No. 12 of character verification form. 9) In view of the aforesaid discussion, respondent authorities committed error of law while terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of suppression of criminal antecedents in the character verification form as on the date of its submission, neither any criminal case was pending against the petitioner nor was he ever arrested by the police authorities. Furthermore, petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad vide judgment dated 13.1.2016. 10) Accordingly, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and departmental appellate authority dated 31.12.2016 and 2.7.2018 6 respectively, are hereby quashed and petitioner shall be entitled for seniority, fixation of pay and other benefits attached to the post. Respondent authorities are directed to take decision in this regard within period of 90 days. However, no back wages shall be payable to the petitioner for the period between termination and reinstatement. 11) In result, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a