JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—The petitioner has assailed a notice dated 8.7.2006 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) intimating him that his services shall stand terminated w.e.f. the date of expiry of one month from the date on which the notice is tendered; order dated 31.7.2006 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) terminating the services of the petitioner and order dated 3.10.2006 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) passed by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal. 2. The petitioner was enlisted as a constable against the strength of group centre on 25.11.2004 in the Central Reserved Police Force, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as CRPF). As per Rule 14 of the CRPF Rules, 1965 the petitioner filed a verification roll and accordingly, the same was sent to his native place i.e. District Magistrate, Basti for verification (copy of the verification roll is on record as Annexure CA I). The District Magistrate, Basti vide his letter dated 9.2.2005 has intimated that a criminal case No. 27 of 2003, under Sections 374/323/504/506/147 IPC and case crime No. 405 of 2004, under Sections 384/323 IPC have been registered against the petitioner at police station Lalganj, Basti. Since the petitioner had concealed the pendency of the aforesaid two criminal cases at serial Nos. 12 (a) and 12 (b) of the verification roll, thus there has been suppression of a vital information in filling up the aforesaid verification roll and, therefore, a show-cause notice dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) was issued to him why his services be not terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10.5.2006 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) wherein he feigned complete ignorance as regards the pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases. As the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, accordingly, he was issued a notice of termination purporting to be under sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 on 8.7.2006 and accordingly, his services were terminated by an order dated 31.7.2006 w.e.f. 11.8.2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed, hence the present writ petition. 3. Relevant clause in the verification roll i.e. serial Nos. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed, hence the present writ petition. 3. Relevant clause in the verification roll i.e. serial Nos. 12 (a) and (b) is quoted hereunder and in response to both the aforesaid queries the reply of the petitioner was “no” : “12 (a) Have you ever been arrested, kept under detention or bound down/fined; convicted, by a Court of law for any offence or debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selections, or debarred from taking any examination/rusticated by any University or any other education authority/Institution? ugha 12 (b) Is any case pending against you in any Court of law, University or any other education authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Verification Roll If answer to (a) or (b) is ‘Yes’ then give details of prosecution, detention, fine, conviction, and punishment etc. and state about the case pending with the Court/ University/Education authority at the time of filling in this form? ugha” 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the aforesaid two criminal cases registered against him. Moreover, in case crime No. 27 of 2003, under Sections 374, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act final report was submitted, which came to be accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.2.2011, copy whereof is Annexure SA -2 to the supplementary affidavit. Similarly, in case crime No. 405 of 2004, under Sections 384, 323 IPC final report came to be accepted on 30.6.2011 vide Annexure SA - I to the supplementary affidavit and, therefore, services of the petitioner could not have been terminated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the benefit of the judgment in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, 2011 (4) SCC 644 , is also liable to be extended to the petitioner, in as much as, the facts of the aforesaid case are substantially similar to that of the instant case. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the benefit of the judgment in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, 2011 (4) SCC 644 , is also liable to be extended to the petitioner, in as much as, the facts of the aforesaid case are substantially similar to that of the instant case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has justified the impugned orders on the ground that the purpose of eliciting required information in clause 12 (a) and (b) of the verification roll is to obtain information as regards the antecedent and character of a candidate, as the petitioner was to be inducted in a disciplined force and as on admitted facts concealment is writ large, hence in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 , the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that even though in a judgment in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) it was held that the purpose of seeking information, as per column 12 of the verification roll, was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of criminal case, yet the information was obtained with a view to judge the character and antecedent of the candidate as to whether he should continue in service or not. Thus, the Apex Court held that in such cases non-disclosure of a vital information as regards pendency/conviction/prosecution of a criminal case would be detrimental to the interest of the candidate and, therefore, the services were liable to be terminated on this ground. 8. However, the Court finds that in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar (supra) decided by the Apex Court on 17.3.2011, a reformative approach has been adopted. 9. Thus, in the background of the aforesaid facts in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) the Apex Court observed as under : “When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. In this connection, we may refer to the character ‘Jean Valjean’ in Victor Hugo’s novel ‘Les Miserables’, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life. ................................... It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.” 10. Thus, the fate of the petition is to be decided in view of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra). 11. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ - A. - 3543 of 2007, Prashant Kumar Singh v. Union of India and others, decided on 18.11.2011 wherein a similar issue was involved placed reliance in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and has allowed the petition. 12. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that indiscretions was also committed by the present petitioner, who too was in his 20’s and, therefore, as held in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and that of Prashant Kumar Singh (supra), an extreme penalty of rejection of his candidature would not be conducive to the interest of the petitioner, as youth is vulnerable to indiscretion and, therefore, justice is to be tempered with mercy. Thus, the proverbial adage “To err is human and to forgive is divine’ would come to the rescue of the petitioner. 13. Thus, the proverbial adage “To err is human and to forgive is divine’ would come to the rescue of the petitioner. 13. Even otherwise, offences for which the petitioner has been charged are not such as would indicate involvement of a moral turpitude and, therefore, a lenient approach is to be adapted. 14. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders have been passed in the teeth of law, declared in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and, therefore, the impugned orders dated 8.7.2006 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), 31.7.2006 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) and 3.10.2006 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) are liable to be set aside. 15. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned orders dated 8.7.2006 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), 31.7.2006 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) and 3.10.2006 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) are set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, except that he shall not be entitled to any wages for the period he was out of employment. No order as to costs. ——————