ORDER P.K. Jaiswal, J. 1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 6-10-2000 passed by the Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P/1, whereby the learned Tribunal quashed the termination order dated 28-9-1998, by which service of the Respondent No. 1 was terminated on the ground that he suppressed the material information in column No. 12 Ka' and 'Kha' of the character verification form in regard to verification of character and antecedents about the pendency of criminal cases or any criminal case lodged against him at any point of time in the Court of law. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the Respondent No. 1 was in the employment of Petitioners department. After the death of the father of Respondent No. 1 he applied for compassionate appointment as per policy of the Petitioners. The Petitioners considered the case of the Respondent No. 1 for appointment of compassionate appointment and provided him appointment on the post of Assistant Grade III vide order dated 20-12-1996 (Annexure A/1). As per condition No. 3 of the appointment order, if in police verification he received any adverse remark then his service shall be terminated forthwith without giving any prior notice to him. 3. The Respondent No. 1 after joining submitted attestation form and certification on 20-7-1997 (Annexure R/3) which was required to be duly filled and submitted by him inter alia containing questions if he had been prosecuted or convicted by Court of any offence and if any case was pending against him in any Court at the time of filling of the attestation form or if the same is decided, he should submit the above information to the best of his knowledge and also declaration that the information given by him was correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and by the said declaration, he also agreed that if the information furnished by him is found to be incomplete or false/incorrect, then the appointing authority empowered to terminate his services without issuing any notice and without assigning any reason to him and the said decision will be binding on him. 4. Column 12 Ka' and 'Kha' as filled up and declaration are very material, reads as under: 5. 4. Column 12 Ka' and 'Kha' as filled up and declaration are very material, reads as under: 5. The Executive Engineer of the Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 28-7-1997 forwarded the character verification form to the Superintendent of Police, Jhabua for Police Verification vide Annexure R/2. The Police Authority after verification vide letter dated 18-8-1998 informed the Department that in Police Station Petlawat District Jhabua (M.P.) Crime No. 10/81 under Section 341 and 323, Indian Penal Code and Crime No. 89/81 under Sections 323, 448, 506, 734, Indian Penal Code were registered against the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioners on verification found that the Respondent No. 1 deliberately suppressed the above material facts in the prescribed form of character verification in column No. 12 at place 'Ka' and 'Kha' and gave wrong declaration and suppressed the material information. As per Clause III of the appointment order and declaration made by him, he is ineligible for providing employment to any civil post and his services shall be liable to be terminated without any intimation to him. The Petitioners thereafter by order dated 28-9-1998 terminated the services of the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure A/4) 6. The Respondent No. 1 challenged his termination order by filing an application under Section 19 of State Administrative Tribunal Act, 1995 on the ground that he had not suppressed any material information in his character verification form and at the time of filling of the form he was acquitted from both the criminal cases and, therefore, his services should have not been terminated for not mentioning the facts pending of two criminal cases because in the year 1997 when he submitted character verification form no case was pending in any Court of law and, therefore, his termination is bad in law. 7. The learned Tribunal relying on the decision of Rajendra Prasad Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and others, 2000 2 MPLSR 236 quashed the termination order on the ground that Respondent No. 1's case was squarely covered by the said Division Bench order of the Tribunal in which the Tribunal held that normally such information should have been disclosed by the delinquent but due to inadvertence he did not mention the same thereon. It is also true that the information about his criminal cases and his acquittal therein is disclosed, even then he could not be debarred from his appointment. It is also true that the information about his criminal cases and his acquittal therein is disclosed, even then he could not be debarred from his appointment. The Tribunal directed the Department to appoint him a fresh without backwages. 8. In the case in hand, the Tribunal has held that Respondent No. 1 was acquitted a long time back in 1986 and, therefore, quashed the termination order. 9. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submitted that the learned Tribunal committed legal error in passing impugned order, without considering that non submission of material information relating to character and antecedents amounted to suppression of material information and making false- statement which has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of Respondent No. 1 in relation to his continuance in service. She also submitted that by not disclosing the number of criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the Respondent No. 1 in relation to his continuance in service and prayed that order is not sustainable and Tribunal committed error in quashing the termination order of the Respondent No. 1. 10. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Respondent No. 1 due to inadvertence did not mention the information about criminal case and his acquittal therein but even then his services could not be terminated because on the date of submission of character verification form he was acquitted and, therefore, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in quashing the termination order. 11. In support of the said contention, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of T.S. Vasudavan Nair vs. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and others, 1998 (Supp) SCC 795 in which the Apex Court had held that denial of employment is unjustified on the sole ground that he had not disclosed that during emergency he had been convicted under the defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion. The Apex Court in the special facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order dated 1-8-1983 canceling offer of appointment on sole ground of non-disclosure of such conviction not justified. 12. The Apex Court in the special facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order dated 1-8-1983 canceling offer of appointment on sole ground of non-disclosure of such conviction not justified. 12. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 lastly submitted that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed on 28-12-1996 and order of acquittal was passed much prior to his appointment and matter would have been different, had the Respondent No. 1 entered into employment when Criminal Case was pending. He continued from 24-12-1996 to 28-9-1998 and no mention of the fact of criminal case would not tantamount to suppression of material information and he did not want to gain any advantage by such non-mention of fact. Learned Counsel in support of the said contention placed reliance on the decision of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Bajpai vs. State of M.P., 2004(3) MPLJ 428 = 2004(3) M.P.H.T. 312 , in which employee was acquitted before he was appointed as daily wager. He continued for 10 years and, therefore, it has been held that an employee who has worked for long and has been regularised should not be thrown to the streets because of a past event which has become a non event in a way. 13. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 14. In the case of Laxmi Narayan Bajpai (supra), the employee was appointed on 1-8-1980 and continued to work for 10 years and, thereafter, the employer has taken an action on the basis of Police Verification Report and terminated the service of the employee on the ground that he gave wrong information in the character verification form and, therefore, set aside the termination order without payment of any backwages. In the present case, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed on 20-12-1996 and he on 20-7-1997 submitted character verification form and in the said form it is very specifically stated to give the facts regarding pendency of the criminal case if any and whether any criminal case lodged against him at any point of time and he has to also give declaration that the information given by him in Clause 12 Ka' and 'Kha' of the form is true to his personal knowledge. The Petitioners submitted the said form of police verification on 20-7-1997 and they received the information on 18-8-1998 and 30-8-1998 and on the basis of the said information the Petitioners for the first time came to the knowledge that Respondent No. 1 suppressed the material information in Column 'Ka' and 'Kha' and made wrong declaration and, therefore, terminated his services vide termination order dated 28-9-1998. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the decision cited by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the case of T.S. Vasudavan Nair and Laxminarayan Bajpai (supra) will not applicable. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the humble view that the law laid down in the case of T.S. Vasudavan Nair and Laxmi Narayan Bajpai (supra) is distinguishable. 15. Now the question is, whether on account of suppression of material information relating to character and antecedents the services of the Respondent No. 1 can be terminated. 16. This question was cropped up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and others vs. Ramratan reported in 2003(3) SCC 437 . The Apex Court has held that the object of requiring information in column No. 12 of the attesting form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents of the Respondent as on the date of filling and attestation of the form to Judge his suitability to continue in service. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the Respondent No. 1 in relation to his continuance in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in Clause-III of the appointment order. 17. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in said columns was sought with a view to Judge the character and antecedents of the Respondent No. 1 to continue in service or not. 18. The Tribunal, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. The information in said columns was sought with a view to Judge the character and antecedents of the Respondent No. 1 to continue in service or not. 18. The Tribunal, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had already been decided much prior to the date of the appointment. The Tribunal was clearly in error in setting aside the termination order. The Tribunal was again not right in taking note of the acquittal of the Respondent No. 1 in the year 1981 that is much prior to his appointment and that the case was not of a serious nature to terminate the services of the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 1 accepted the offer of appointment subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Clause-III of the said appointment kept the Respondent No. 1 informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service without any prior intimation. In the attestation form, the Respondent No. 1 has certified and gave declaration that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, if he could not understand the contents of column 12, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. 19. The Apex Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission vs. Koneti Vekateswarulu and others reported in 2006 (1) MPLJ (SC) 274 : AIR 2005 SC 4292 has held that as to the purpose for which the information is called, the employer is the ultimate Judge. It is not open to the candidate to sit in judgment before the relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the Respondent No. 1 suppressed the material fact in character verification form and gave wrong declaration. It is only when the Petitioners discovered that there was suppression very and suggestion false on the part of the Respondent No. 1 in the character verification form. We are of the view that the termination of Respondent No. 1 was proper because a person who indulges in such suppression very and suggestion false and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. 20. We are of the view that the termination of Respondent No. 1 was proper because a person who indulges in such suppression very and suggestion false and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. 20. In this view, the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted. The decision cited by the Respondent No. 1 in the case of T.S. Vasudavan Nair and Laxmi Narayan Bajpai (supra) are distinguishable and will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and A.P. Public Service Commission (supra) and facts as stated above and taking note of the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and we are of the view that impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 21. In our considered view, the impugned order dated 6-10-2000 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1358/98 cannot be sustained and stand quashed. Hence, the writ petition filed by the Petitioners is allowed, but without any order as to costs. Petition allowed