Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: false declaration in Balbinder Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 July, 2006Matching Fragments
(3) Where the Inspector General has terminated the service of a probationer, acting as appointing authority, all the powers prescribed in Sub-rules (1) and (2) above shall be exercised by the Director General and where the Director General has issued the order of termination by the Central Government.
9. After hearing counsel for the parties and upon scanning the records, we find that the petitioner in Column 12 of the Attestation Form, filled in by him on 10th April 2003, clearly stated that he was never arrested/prosecuted or kept under detention nor any case was pending against him in any court of law. He did so under his signatures. He also furnished along with his Attestation Form, certificates that no proceedings were pending against him from the SHO Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra and from the SDM of the area. However, when the aforesaid Attestation Form was forwarded for Page 2941 verification by the DIG concerned to the Deputy Commissioner, District Kangra (H.P.) at the home address of the petitioner, it was reported by the Dy. Commissioner, Kangra that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case instituted Under Section 420/461/468/471 of IPC vide FIR No. 64/2001. Thus, it stands established from the records that the petitioner had entered the service by furnishing false information, which was false to his knowledge, and obtained appointment to the post by playing a fraud. This, despite the fact that the petitioner had been specifically cautioned in writing in the Attestation Form itself, which carried a warning in clear terms and in bold letters at the top of the said form as to the consequences of furnishing false information and suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form. The petitioner who was morally and legally bound not to furnish any false declaration and also not to suppress any factual information, did so at the peril of termination of his services as set out in Warning No. 3 and the likelihood of his being rendered unfit for employment under the Government as stipulated in Warning No. 1.