JUDGMENT 1. - At the instance of one Shri Salim Khan, a case was registered against the appellant petitioner at Police Station Govindgarh contemplating the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323 and 341 Indian Penal Code. After regular investigation a police report was filed before the trial court and on basis of that the trial court framed charges against the appellant petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 308, 323 and 341/34 Indian Penal Code. During the course of trial the appellant petitioner and the complainant party arrived at a compromise, thus, the charges relating to the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341/34 Indian Penal Code were compounded, however, the trial continued for the offence punishable under Section 308 Indian Penal Code, the same being non-compoundable. 2. In pursuant to an advertisement issued by Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur the appellant petitioner applied for consideration of his candidature for appointment as Technical Helper. By a communication dated NIL (Annexure-5) the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur advised the appellant petitioner to attend corporate office of the company for verification of the documents. It was also conveyed to him that he stands in provisional merit drawn upto half times of the vacancies on basis of the written examination held on 6.11.2011 and by taking into consideration his educational qualification. The appellant petitioner was also directed to submit an affidavit on non-judicial stamp worth Rs. 10/- duly attested by Notary Public giving details about the criminal case, if pending against him in any court and further that he has not been convicted for any criminal charge. In pursuant to the condition aforesaid the appellant petitioner submitted an affidavit stating therein 3. By an order dated 2.7.2012 the Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur, appointed the appellant petitioner on the post of "Technical Helper" as Probationer Trainee and posted him in the office of the Superintending Engineer (O & M), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jalore. In pursuance to the order aforesaid the appellant petitioner joined services and while working as such he received a notice dated 11.3.2014 to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for not disclosing pendency of a criminal case before a competent court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 325 and 308/34 Indian Penal Code. The appellant petitioner responded to the notice with assertion that by submitting an affidavit he disclosed pendency of the case before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, hence no concealment was made by him. It was also made clear by him that the charges pertaining to the offence except Section 308 Indian Penal Code have already been compounded as the parties to the incident have arrived at a compromise. The Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, by an order dated 7.4.2014 terminated the appellant petitioner from service by observing that he violated condition No. 17 of the order of appointment and he availed service by submitting forged document and concealing the fact. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 7.4.2014 and its compliance order dated 7.5.2014, the appellant petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ, that came to be dismissed on 10.7.2014, hence this appeal before us. Learned Single Bench held that though the petitioner disclosed pendency of a criminal case against him for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323 and 341 Indian Penal Code, but did not disclose pendency of trial for the offence punishable under Section 308 Indian Penal Code, therefore, he misled the employer by concealing a fact. Learned Single Bench observed that "the conduct of the petitioner for not furnishing the material information in the application form itself amounts to misconduct of moral turpitude, therefore, it is held that no illegality has been committed by the respondents while terminating the services of the petitioner because he is guilty of committing concealment of material fact for obtaining appointment on the post of Technical Helper". 5. 5. In appeal, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of termination from service is bad on the counts that - "(1) the appellant petitioner did not conceal any fact from the employer though a minor error occurred while giving details of the criminal case; (2) the employer called upon the appellant petitioner to explain as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him for not giving details of the criminal case said to be pending against him, but no disciplinary action was taken and he was terminated from service without adhering the procedure prescribed for imposing a penalty; and (3) the employer used the term "termination" which do not disclose that the termination is removal from service, dismissal from service or is by way of cancellation of appointment." 6. According to learned counsel, penalty of removal or dismissal could have not been imposed without following procedure given in the relevant discipline and appeal rules for imposing major punishment. 7. Opposing the appeal, learned counsel appearing for the electricity company submits that complete details were not furnished by the appellant petitioner and, therefore, he concealed a material fact while getting himself employed as Technical Helper. It is asserted that the fact about non-submission of complete details of the criminal case is admitted by the appellant petitioner himself, therefore, no need was there to hold regular disciplinary inquiry. 8. Heard learned counsels. 9. The first issue before us is that whether the appellant petitioner intentionally concealed a material fact making him dis entitled for appointment or that was only a mistake/error. As already stated, the appellant petitioner as demanded by the employer submitted an affidavit disclosing therein about pendency of a criminal case before the court of "ADJ". True it is, the appellant petitioner did not mention about pendency of a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section 308 Indian Penal Code, but he gave reference of the case and also name of the court where the case was pending. The reference of the court which exercises powers of Sessions Court clearly indicates that he was facing a trial for a sessions case. Suffice to mention that the offences referred in the affidavit (143, 323 and 341 Indian Penal Code) are Magistrate triable. The reference of the court which exercises powers of Sessions Court clearly indicates that he was facing a trial for a sessions case. Suffice to mention that the offences referred in the affidavit (143, 323 and 341 Indian Penal Code) are Magistrate triable. The explanation given by learned counsel is that the appellant is not highly qualified person and he is also coming from lower echelon of rural society, thus, he was not having knowledge about minute integrities of the case pending. Just on basis of the first information report available with him, he got the affidavit typed by disclosing the name of the court where the case was pending and submitted the same to the employer. This fact clearly indicates that he was not intending to conceal or misled the employer. The fact that at the first instance the case was only for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323 and 341/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 308 Indian Penal Code was added subsequently. The explanation given by the appellant petitioner appears plausible. The details given in the affidavit relating to criminal case were taken into consideration by the employer and appointment thereafter was accorded to him. The employer is having assistance of legal advisor and they could have verified as to how a case for Magistrate triable charges could have been pending before the Sessions Court. Necessary explanation could have also been taken from the appellant petitioner and on asking he would have submitted other details. 10. Be that as it may, mentioning of criminal case that was pending against him before the court of Additional District Judge (Additional Sessions Judge) clearly indicates that the appellant petitioner was not intending to conceal a fact from the employer. We are of considered opinion that the appellant petitioner committed an error that deserves condonation. The finding aforesaid is sufficient to accept this appeal, thus, we are not examining the other arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 11. The appeal, for the discussions made above, is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 10.7.2014 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the appellant petitioner giving challenge to the order dated 7.4.2014 passed by Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jalore and its consequential order dated 7.5.2014 passed by Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Sub Division Bagra, District Jalore are quashed. The judgment impugned dated 10.7.2014 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the appellant petitioner giving challenge to the order dated 7.4.2014 passed by Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Jalore and its consequential order dated 7.5.2014 passed by Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Sub Division Bagra, District Jalore are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant petitioner in service with all consequential benefits except actual payment of wages for the period he remained out of employment. 12. No order to costs.Special appeal allowed. *******