Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order of termination dated 24.1.2012. 2. The petitioner got her name registered with the Employment Exchange. On requisition by the second respondent, the name of the petitioner was sponsored for appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher. The petitioner was called for interview on 22.8.2000 and he appeared for interview on 4.9.2000 where he submitted all the credentials/certificates and also filled up the verification report. In the column, whether any criminal case is pending against the petitioner or that the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case, the petitioner wrote in negative, as there was no criminal case pending against her, nor she was convicted in any case. 3. In pursuance to her selection in the interview, the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 1.2.2001, and in pursuance to her appointment, she joined at Panchayat Union Primary School, Avarankadu. 4. After ten months of joining the post, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice, alleging that one P. Sengodan had filed a complaint that on the date of appointment of the petitioner, there was a criminal case pending against her, which showed, that the petitioner had obtained appointment on false information. 5. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice, pointing out that the petitioner was not in know of the case registered against her on 22.12.2000, and in any case, the verification form, in which it was stated that there was no case pending against her, was filled up by the petitioner on 4.9.2000. The information given in form was correct, as on that day no case was pending. 6. The second respondent did not agree with the explanation and came to the conclusion, that the petitioner was guilty of suppressing requisite information at the time of her appointment, and consequently ordered her termination, vide the impugned order. 7. It is the submission of the petitioner, that on coming to know about the case against her, she approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail, and finally stands acquitted in the case registered against her. 8. 7. It is the submission of the petitioner, that on coming to know about the case against her, she approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail, and finally stands acquitted in the case registered against her. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order of termination on the grounds that, i) The impugned order cannot be sustained being arbitrary and out- come of non application of mind, as the Competent authority has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner, pointing out that the requisite form was filled by the petitioner on 4.9.2000, whereas, the case was registered against the petitioner only on 22.12.2000 which came to her knowledge only on 2.2.2001. ii) The impugned order also cannot be sustained as it has been passed on specific charges, but no enquiry was held, nor any reason given for rejecting the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 9. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, by contending that the petitioner was guilty of concealment of fact about her involvement in a criminal case at the time of her appointment, therefore, she did not have any legal right to continue in service. 10. It is also the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader, that the impugned order of simplicitor “termination” as per the terms of her appointment on account of suppression of the material fact which did not require holding of enquiry as no stigma is attached in the impugned order against the petitioner. 11. On consideration, I find this writ petition deserves to succeed. The respondent could have terminated the service of the petitioner, in case concealment of material fact was proved. 12. In the counter filed it is not disputed that the verification form was filled by the petitioner on 4.9.2000, whereas, criminal case was registered against the petitioner only in the month of December 2000 i.e., after three months of filling up of the verification form. It was not expected that the petitioner to dream, that in future some false case will be registered against her. 13. The allegation that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of material fact are patently wrong, and conclusion by competent authority is thus outcome of non application of mind. Therefore, there is no justification in terminating the service of the petitioner. 13. The allegation that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of material fact are patently wrong, and conclusion by competent authority is thus outcome of non application of mind. Therefore, there is no justification in terminating the service of the petitioner. When the petitioner stands acquitted in the criminal case and is not found guilty of suppression of any material facts, the impugned order can safely be said to be arbitrary. 14. For the reasons stated, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, but with no order as to cost.