The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.799 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ……………… Anjan Kumar Bhoi …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Sr. Panel Counsel along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:19.08.2025 and Date of Judgment:19.08.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order dtd.02.11.2018 so passed // 2 // under Annexure-4 and confirmed vide order dtd. 03.11.2021 under Annexure-9. Vide order under Annexure-4, Petitioner was terminated from his services on the ground that while submitting the verification roll on 01.04.2017 under Annexure-10, he has suppressed his implication in Bheden P.S. Case No.97 dtd.13.09.2014 corresponding to C.T. Case No.741 of 2014 in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that after coming out successful in the selection process initiated by the Staff Selection Commission, Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Constable (General Duty) in CRPF vide order of appointment issued on 11.03.2017 under Annexure-1. Petitioner thereafter provided the certificate issued by the concerned police station under Annexure-2 inter alia indicating therein that Petitioner has no adverse criminal record found in the P.S. against him till that date. Such a certificate was issued by IIC, Bheden P.S. on 28.03.2017 under Annexure-2. 4.1. Thereafter, Petitioner as required, filled up the verification roll on 01.04.2017 under Annexure-10 and in the said verification roll, Petitioner also gave the declaration that he is not implicated in any criminal case. However, on the ground that Petitioner by the time he made such a declaration in his verification roll under Annexure-10 was an accused in Bheden P.S. Case No.97 dtd.13.09.2014 and Petitioner since has Page 2 of 18 // 3 // not disclosed about the same, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.21.02.2019 under Annexure-4. Petitioner though moved the appellate authority, but the same was also rejected vide order dtd.03.11.2021 under Annexure-9. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though Bheden P.S. Case No.97 dtd.13.09.2014 was there against the Petitioner by the time he submitted the verification roll under Annexure-10 on 01.04.2017, but while giving the certificate under Annexure-2 on 28.03.2017, the self- same police station clearly indicated that there is no adverse criminal record against the Petitioner till that date. 4.3. It is also contended that in the aforesaid P.S. Case which was subsequently registered as C.T. Case No.741 of 2014 in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh, Petitioner at no point of time was served with the summon and accordingly Petitioner had no knowledge that he has been arrayed as an accused in Bheden P.S. Case No.97 dtd.13.09.2014. In support of the same,
Legal Reasoning
the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23409 of 2024 as well as the guideline issued in the case of Avta Singh under Para-38.8 and 38.11, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner was terminated from his services is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.21.02.2019 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-4, further confirmed by Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.03.11.2021 under Annexure-9. While quashing both the orders, this Court directs Opposite Party No.3, to pass an order of reinstatement by reinstating the Petitioner in his services within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. This Court further observes that the break Page 17 of 18 // 18 // period of service be regularized in accordance with law on notional basis.
Arguments
learned counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order sheet in C.T. Case No.741 of 2014 under Annexure-11. Relying on Annexure-11, it is contended that w.e.f. 15.09.2014 to 03.11.2018, summon issued vide order dtd.12.12.2014 was never served on the Petitioner. Page 3 of 18 // 4 // 4.4. It is contended that since in the criminal case so initiated against the Petitioner, Petitioner was never served with the summon nor was ever intimated by the concerned police station, Petitioner had no occasion to know about the same, by the time he submitted the verification roll on 01.04.2017 under Annexure-10. Hence, it cannot be held that, Petitioner intentionally and deliberately suppressed about his implication in the criminal case. 4.5. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.21.02.2019 under Annexure-4, so confirmed vide order dtd. 03.11.2021 under Annexure-9 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.6. In support of such submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court passed on 26.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No.23409 of 2024. View expressed by this Court in Para-19 reads as follows:- “It is also relevant to mention here that nothing was brought on record in course of hearing to establish the fact that the Petitioner was either arrested/detained in police custody or he was ever summoned to the police station in connection with the investigation of the above noted two criminal cases. Therefore, on the basis of the facts pleaded as well as the materials brought on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Opposite Parties have failed to establish the fact that the pendency of the above noted two criminal cases were within the knowledge of the Petitioner.”. 5. Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned Senior Panel Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order Page 4 of 18 // 5 // made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 5.1. It is contended that the certificate issued under Annexure-2 when was sent for verification, the self- same IIC, vide letter dtd.15.03.2022 under Annexure- A/1, intimated that Petitioner was an accused in Bheden P.S. Case No.97 dtd.13.09.2014 and he was facing trial and the judgment was passed in his favour by finding him not guilty, vide judgment dtd.21.11.2021. 5.2. It is contended that since Petitioner was an accused in the aforesaid P.S. Case, which was registered on 13.09.2014 and the said fact was not disclosed by the Petitioner, while submitting the verification roll on 01.04.2017 under Annexure-10, it amounts to suppression of material fact and because of such suppression, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.21.02.2019 under Annexure-4 of Opposite Party No.3. Petitioner when challenged the same in appeal, the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-9 also confirmed the same. The stand taken in Para-11 to 13 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: “11. That, in reply to the averments made in Para-4 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted here that the present petitioner knowing that one criminal case is pending against him, still he managed to grab fabricated this certificate. Page 5 of 18 // 6 // In this connection, the office of the 12 Bn vide letter No.J.11.1/2022-EC-11 dated 26.02.2022 sought for clarification from the police. The letter dated concerned Police Station vide 15.03.2022 informed the department that there is no issuance of such certificate from Bhiden Police Station to the writ petitioner. such copy certificate/clarification issued by the Bhiden Police Station is annexed hereto as Annexure-A/l series. information regarding The the of for letter the post is begins, which 12. That, in reply to the averments made in Para-5 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted here that as appointment norms, candidates are initially selected on their successfully completion of physical efficiency test and physical slandered test (PET & PST). After joining any candidates, as per Para-14 of CRPF Rules-1955, post recruitment process include verification of all documents, i.e, educational certificate, the D.O.B, Caste Certificate, etc. submitted by candidates during pre-recruitment and verification of Character and Antecedent of the individual from concerned District Magistrate. In the instant case, the present Petitioner was initially selected and issued appointment of to him Constable/General duty. After joining in service, the Petitioner, during filling up of his verification roll (CRPF- 25) for verification of his character and antecedent from the concerned District Magistrate, falsely filled up "NO" in column No. 12 (a) which stated that Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission it’s examination/selection or debarred from taking any examination/resticated by any University or any other educational authority/Institution? and (b) Is any case pending against you in any court of law, University or any other educational authority/Institution at the time of filling up this verification Roll? If answer to (a) or (b) is "YES", then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction, and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the Court/University/Educational authority at the time of filing in this form. appearing from at It is pertinent to mention here that, during verification of Character and antecedent of the Petitioner, the Collector & District Magistrate, Bargarh, the Additional District Page 6 of 18 // 7 // Magistrate vide his letter No. 1335 dated 01.12.2018, intimated that a case is registered against the Petitioner vide Bheden P.S Case No. 97/13.09.2014 U/s. 341/294/323/506/307/34 of I.P.C. and C.S No. 99/2014 submitted U/s. 341/294/323/34 of I.P.C as per police record. 13. That, in reply to the averments made in Para-6 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted here that after completion of basic training, the Petitioner reported in 11 BN CRPF, Latehar (Jharkhand) on 11.04.2018 and he was allotted to E/11 Bn. Thereafter, verification report of Character and Antecedent of the Petitioner communicated by the Additional District Magistrate, Bargarh was received in 11 Bn, CRPF from Group Centre, CRPF, Mokamaghat vide office letter No. V.I- 1/2018-EC-10 dated 20.12.2018. As per verification report of the Additional District Magistrate, Bargarh, a case is registered against the petitioner vide Bheden P.S Case No. 97/2014 U/s- 341/294/323/506/307/34 of I.P.C and CS No. 99/2014 submitted under Section as per police record. 341/294/323/34 of IPC Accordingly, due to the adverse remarks on his verification report of concerned District Magistrate, the Petitioner was terminated from service w.e.f. 18.03.2019 under Sub- Rule (1) of Rule-5 of Central Civil Service, (Temporary Services) Rule, 1965.” 5.3. In support of the submission and the stand taken in the counter affidavit, reliance was placed to the following decisions (i) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Anil Kanwariya, reported in (2021)10 SCC 136, (ii) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC-471 and (iii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Dillip Kumar Mallick, reported in (2023) 12 SCC-331. 5.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kanwariya in Para-8.1 to 8.3 held as follows:- “8.1 In the case of B. Chinnam Naidu (supra), this Court has observed that the object of requiring information in Page 7 of 18 // 8 // the attestation form and the declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. It is further observed that when a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false for appointment or continuance in service. information, he cannot claim any right 8.2 In the case of Devendra Kumar (supra), while joining the training, the employee was asked to submit an affidavit giving certain information, particularly, whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case. The employee submitted an affidavit stating that he had never been involved in any criminal case. The employee completed his training satisfactorily and it was at this time that the employer in pursuance of the process of character verification came to know that the employee was in fact involved in a criminal case. It was found that the final report in that case had been submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the same, the employee was discharged abruptly on the ground that since he was a temporary government servant, he could be removed from service without holding an enquiry. The said order was challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court which was dismissed. The Division Bench upheld that order, which was the subject matter of appeal before this Court. Dismissing the appeal, this Court observed and held that the question is not whether the employee is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this itself amounts to moral turpitude. It is further observed that the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information and in that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. It is further observed by this Court in the said decision that where an applicant/employee gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”. It is further observed and held that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented themselves and in information trial or further Page 8 of 18 // 9 // such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. The relevant observations in the said decision are in paras 12, 13, 18 & 25, which are as under: further trial or turpitude but suppressing of 12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been the person concerned stood no acquitted/discharged. 13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” [Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1: AIR 1994 SC 853.] In Lazarus Estates Ltd. V. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702: (1956) 2 WLR 502: (1956) 1 ALL ER 341 (CA)] the Court observed without equivocation that: (QB p. 712) “… No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.” 18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam ... vs Anil Kanwariya (1995) Supp (4) SCC 100 this court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed as under: (M. Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6) If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer. 25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus the same cannot be permitted Page 9 of 18 // 10 // – a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum caprere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. [Vide Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (1996) 4 SCC 127:1996 SCC (Cri) 592: AIR 1996 SC 1340 and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056.] Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur). 8.3 In the case of Jainendra Singh (supra), this Court summarised the principles to be considered in a case where the appointment is obtained by misrepresentation and/or suppression of facts by candidates/appointees as under: “(i) Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer. (ii) Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted. forged documents, (iii) When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any to estoppel against termination without holding any inquiry. the employer while resorting it would amount (iv) 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. (v) The purpose of calling for information regarding in any criminal case or detention or involvement Page 10 of 18 // 11 // conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have clear the bearing on candidate in relation to his continuity in service. the character and antecedents of (vi) The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service. (vii) 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. (viii) An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case, if ultimately he was conviction or detention, even acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post. (ix) An employee in the uniformed service pre-supposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. (x) The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable.” 5.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh in Para-32 & 38 held as follows:- “32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent Page 11 of 18 // 12 // has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non- disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services. xxx xxx xxx 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus”. 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation or candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filing of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. Page 12 of 18 // 13 // 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employees. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.” 5.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dillip Kumar Mallick in Para-16,17 & 22 held as follows:- “16. As regards the effect of suppression of facts, the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , has stated the principles in no uncertain terms thus : (SCC p. 506, para 32) “32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty- bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non- disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.” 17. Of course, in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , Page 13 of 18 // 14 // various eventualities and the applicable principles have been summarised in para 38 and sub-paragraph thereof. We may reproduce the relevant parts, as occurring in paras 38.1 to 38.4.3, as under : (SCC p. 507) “38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation or candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filing of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employees. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant Page 14 of 18 // 15 // facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.” XXX XXX XXX 22. In the given set of facts and circumstances, where suppression of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the Court to interfere in the manner that the employer be directed to impose “any lesser punishment”, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The submissions seeking to evoke sympathy and calling for leniency cannot lead to any relief in favour of the respondent. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner vide order dtd.11.03.2017 was appointed as against the post of Constable (General Duty) in CRPF after coming out successful in the written examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. After such appointment, Petitioner was issued with a certificate by IIC, Bheden P.S. on 28.03.2017 under Annexure-2, wherein it was clearly indicated that Petitioner has no advertise criminal record found in the P.S. against him. 6.1. Thereafter, Petitioner while submitting the verification roll on 01.04.2017 under Annexure-10, indicated that he is not involved in any criminal case. But subsequently on the ground that Petitioner is an accused in Bheden P.S. Case No.97 dtd.13.09.2014 and Petitioner has suppressed the same in the Page 15 of 18 // 16 // verification roll, he was terminated vide order dtd.02.11.2018 under Annexure-4 of Opposite Party No.3. Such order of termination was also confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dtd.03.11.2021 under Annexure-9. 6.2. As found from the record, Petitioner was terminated only on the ground that the Petitioner while submitting the verification roll under Annexure-10 on 01.04.2017 suppressed about his involvement in the criminal case in Bheden P.S. Case No.97 dtd.13.09.2014. This Court after going through the order sheet available under Annexure-11, finds that till submission of the verification roll by the Petitioner on 10.04.2017, Petitioner was never served with the summon, even though it was issued vide order dtd.12.12.2014. 6.3. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that in absence of service of the summon on the Petitioner in the police case, it cannot be held that the Petitioner had the knowledge about the same while submitting the verification roll on 01.04.2017 under Annexure-10. This Court also finds that the self-same police station while issuing the certificate under Annexure-2 on 28.03.2017, clearly indicated that Petitioner has got no adverse criminal record. Page 16 of 18 // 17 // 6.4. Placing reliance on the certificate issued under Annexure-2 and the fact that by the time, Petitioner submitted the verification roll, he was never served with the summon in C.T. Case No.741 of 2014, which has not been disputed by the Opposite Parties by filing any other documents, this Court is of the view that Petitioner has not suppressed about his involvement in the criminal case while submitting the verification roll under Annexuxre-10. Not only that Petitioner was also acquitted vide judgment dtd.21.11.2021 as reflected in Annexure-A/1. 6.5. In that view of the matter and placing reliance on
Decision
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th August, 2025/Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Sep-2025 12:44:43 Page 18 of 18