JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 665 (SB) of 1999; Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and another, whereby the order of termination dated 19.3.1999 was quashed with a direction to treat the respondent-petitioner in service and pay salary and allowances with a further observation that it shall be open for the appellant-respondent to proceed against the respondent-petitioner in accordance with relevant Disciplinary Rules for the alleged misconduct, if they think it just and proper. 2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant as well as Sri S.N. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-petitioner had intentionally not disclosed at the time of applying for the post of Constable in PAC that he was earlier involved in a criminal case under Sections 307/504/506 IPC read with Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act and as such he was guilty of alleged misconduct. 4. By order dated 19.3.1999, in exercise of powers under U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975, the service of respondent-petitioner was terminated by passing an order of termination simplicitor. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-petitioner was recruited on a temporary post of Constable in PAC. He had submitted a false affidavit to procure the service benefits at the time of appointment by concealing the fact that he was involved in a criminal case which was registered at P.S. Mill Area District Raebareli and therefore, his service was rightly terminated. 6. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge had wrongly held that the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India were not followed and therefore, the impugned order of termination was bad. In fact, Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was not attracted in the case of temporary Government servant. 7. It is submitted that the judgment of Awadhes Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 763, was not applicable as the respondent-petitioner had intentionally not disclosed the relevant information that he was involved in a criminal case. In fact, Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was not attracted in the case of temporary Government servant. 7. It is submitted that the judgment of Awadhes Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC 763, was not applicable as the respondent-petitioner had intentionally not disclosed the relevant information that he was involved in a criminal case. The benefit of acquittal in the said judgment cannot be given to the petitioner, as he had intentionally concealed the relevant information from the authority at the time of his selection on the post of Constable in PAC. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the respondent-petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case and by the judgment and order dated 24.9.1997 he was honourably acquitted in the case filed under Sections 307/506/504 IPC read with Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/St Act. The said judgment was pronounced prior to the selection held for the post of Constable in PAC in the year 1998 and as such the petitioner did not think it relevant and necessary to mention the details of the said case while applying for recruitment on the post of Constable in PAC. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that in any case in the aforesaid criminal case, the respondent-petitioner was acquitted and the same has become final as such he should not be punished simply because a false and frivolous criminal case was lodged against him. 10. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that it was incumbent upon the Government authorities to have come to the conclusion whether the respondent-petitioner was fit and suitable in all respect for employment in the Government service or to the post to which he was to be appointed and it was the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point. There was nothing on record on the basis of which the appointing authority could have taken a view that the respondent-petitioner was not suitable for appointment to the post of Constable in PAC, as he was already acquitted in the criminal case at the time of selection. There was nothing on record on the basis of which the appointing authority could have taken a view that the respondent-petitioner was not suitable for appointment to the post of Constable in PAC, as he was already acquitted in the criminal case at the time of selection. The Government authorities did not make any such exercise and terminated the service of the respondent-petitioner simply because he had not disclosed the information regarding the criminal case against him at the time of selection and the said fact had come to the knowledge at the time of verification roll. 11. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(4) ESC 634 (SC), wherein it has been held that the authorities had not gone in the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of Constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the proforma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, 2011(3) SCALE 606, in which the Apex Court has taken a view that cancellation of candidature to the post of temporary Head Constable for the suppression and failure to disclose in the verification roll/application about his involvement in an incident resulting in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 of the IPC when the candidate was a young man, was not justified. 13. We have considered the submissions made by the parties’ counsel and gone through the record. 14. The learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2003 has quashed the termination order, although on different grounds holding that the impugned order dated 19.3.1999 is bad in law because it is penal in nature and has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing but we are of the view that the order of termination was not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra). It was not possible for the appointing authority to have taken a view that the respondent was not suitable for appointment to the post of Constable as he was already acquitted in the alleged criminal case before the selection on the post of Constable. Moreover, no such exercise was carried out by the authorities concerned. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the special appeal has no force, it is accordingly dismissed. 16. The order impugned of the learned Single Judge dated 16.9.2003 is upheld. The respondent-petitioner shall be taken back in service within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the opposite parties but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he remained out of service. 17. There shall be no order as to cost. ——————