JUDGMENT Singh, C.J. (Oral) -- Petitioner was appointed as operator in Tube Well Construction Department on daily wage basis in 1978. By order dated 3.3.1990 his services were regularised against the post 'unskilled Assistant' (Annexure P-3). Since then he is working against this post diligently, honestly and to entire satisfaction of his superiors, petitioner states. At the stage of regularisation against the post 'unskilled Assistant' on 3.3.1990 petitioner was required to fill 'attestation form' which he did on 30.12.1993 (Annexure P-4). Against column 12 asking whether petitioner was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under suspension or bound down/fined, convicted by a writ of law for the offence or debarred, disqualified by any public service commission from appearing at its examination, petitioner answered the same in negative, forgetting with passage of time that criminal cases were initiated against the petitioner and he had been acquitted in these by the Court in 1987 (Annexure P-7). On 19.12.1994 (Annexure P-2) services of petitioner were terminated with immediate effect on the basis of information from DIG Guptwarta (P) M.P., Bhopal, report dated 19.10.1994 (Annexure P-5) that petitioner was not eligible for Government service. Petitioner represented to the respondent that he had been acquitted by the Court in both the cases. It was pointed out that the information was gathered and furnished without enquiry and giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain the matter. Further, submission is that the petitioner filed the form in English language with which he was not well versed since he belongs to remote village Bodal, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg, could not understand the meaning and implication of such words herein. The result was that the query was answered in the negative. He did so honestly and with bona fide motive without any intention to deceive, for securing the Government service. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After taking into consideration the facts of the cases against the petitioner and the judgments of acquittal passed, we are of opinion that the services of petitioner should not have been terminated. Once the petitioner was acquitted, no further information was required. Moreover, the cases do not involve moral terpitude disentitling him from employment. Similar situation arose in W.P. No. 4191/99 (Ramratan Yadav v. Kendriya Vidyalaya. Sangthan and others) decided on 25.7.2000. Once the petitioner was acquitted, no further information was required. Moreover, the cases do not involve moral terpitude disentitling him from employment. Similar situation arose in W.P. No. 4191/99 (Ramratan Yadav v. Kendriya Vidyalaya. Sangthan and others) decided on 25.7.2000. After considering the matter, following Apex Court Judgment reported in 1999 AIR SCW 474 (Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and another), the petition was allowed and respondents were directed to employ the petitioner from the date of initial appointment with consequential benefits. Present being the similar case, therefore, writ petition is allowed. Order of State Administrative Tribunal dated 25.3.2000 is set aside. Respondents are directed to employ the petitioner against post he was holding before termination from same date with consequential benefits. Certified copy of the order be supplied.