JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner in this writ application assails the majority view expressed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Original Application No. 890 of 1995 disposed of on 18.9.2000. 2. The Petitioner initially entered into the defence service and joined in Army in the year 1974 and was discharged on retirement on 1.11.1990. The Collector, Nuapada undertook recruitment examination for filling up the vacancy in the rank of Junior Clerk in accordance with the provisions contained in O.M.S. Rules, 1985 and the Petitioner was one of the Applicants. The Petitioner was selected in the recruitment test and was appointed as Junior Clerk on 3.10.1994 and he joined in service. When he was continuing as such, by order dated 1.7.1995 his services were terminated without assigning any reason or without requiring the Petitioner to show cause in the matter of termination. Challenging the said order of termination, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal. 3. Initially the case was heard by a Division Bench. The Judicial Member allowed the application whereas the Administrative Member differed with the judgment of the Judicial Member and accordingly, it was referred to another single Member who happens to be a Judicial Member. The third Member to whom the matter was referred agreed with the findings of the Administrative Member and accordingly the O.A. was dismissed. Though the Petitioner challenged the said order in this Court, during pendency of the writ application, he expired and his legal heirs have been substituted in his place. 4. The Court is now called upon in this writ application to decide as to whether the majority view expressed by the Tribunal upholding the order of termination from service is justified or hot. The undisputed facts are that the Petitioner had applied for appointment as Junior Clerk under the Collectorate, Nuapada and had been selected for such appointment. He also joined in the post and continued for almost ten months. By order dated 1.7.1995 his services were terminated without assigning any reason. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in the prescribed form against Clause-12 the Petitioner had given wrong information and, therefore, he was terminated from the service. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of the Court to a copy of this form annexed to the writ application as Annexure -5. In the counter affidavit it is stated that in the prescribed form against Clause-12 the Petitioner had given wrong information and, therefore, he was terminated from the service. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of the Court to a copy of this form annexed to the writ application as Annexure -5. Clause - 12 of the said form requires a candidate to disclose as to whether he has been convicted in a criminal case or not. In the event, the candidate is convicted in any criminal case, he is also required to disclose the nature of the case and the sentence imposed. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, undisputedly before submission of his application, he was involved in a criminal case and had been acquitted. At the time of submission of the application G.R. Case No. 69 of 1995 was pending against him, but the said G.R. Case had not been concluded. Basing on these admitted facts it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner having not been convicted in any case on the date of submission of the application, there was no requirement on the part of the Petitioner to disclose anything against Clause 12 of the application form. The learned Counsel for the State neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court could produce anything to show that on the date of application the Petitioner had been convicted in a criminal case. On the other hand, it appears that prior to submission of application, the Petitioner was an accused in a criminal case but had been acquitted and on the date of application a criminal case vide G.R. Case No. 69 of 1995 was pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada. A copy of the F.I.R. in the said G.R. Case has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure -7. The F.I.R. does not disclose the name of the Petitioner and, therefore, we are of the view that the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he had no knowledge about pendency of the said case is acceptable. Therefore, non-disclosure of any information in Clause - 12 of the application form does not amount to giving wrong information on the basis of which the order of termination was passed. Therefore, non-disclosure of any information in Clause - 12 of the application form does not amount to giving wrong information on the basis of which the order of termination was passed. The Judicial member of the Division Bench who heard the case initially was correct in his view that the Petitioner having not been convicted in any criminal case had not rightly disclosed anything in the application form which only requires information to be given in the event of conviction in any criminal case. Apart from the above, the Petitioner was regularly appointed as Junior Clerk through recruitment process and when he was thrown out of service by an order of termination, he is required to be given notice to show cause. The majority view expressed by the Tribunal that the Petitioner being on probation, he is not required to be served with a show cause notice is erroneous. 5. We, therefore, for the reasons stated above, allow the writ application, set aside the majority view expressed by the Tribunal and also set aside the order of termination issued against the Petitioner on 1.7.1995. The Petitioner having expired, the only question is as to whether his legal heirs are entitled to the salary payable to the deceased-Petitioner for the period he would have served. The order of termination having been found to be illegal, we are of the view that the deceased-Petitioner was entitled to the salary for the period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of his death and accordingly, his legal heirs are entitled to such salary. We, accordingly, direct the opposite parties to calculate the salary payable to the deceased-Petitioner from 1.7.1995 till his death and pay the same to the legal heirs of the deceased-Petitioner who have been substituted in this Court in his place, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Requisites for communication of this order to the opposite parties be filed within one week. Final Result : Allowed