JUDGMENT 1. - Instant infra court appeal has been filed against order of the ld. Single Judge dated 3.12.2003 upholding action of the respondent in terminating services of the appellant vide order dated 24.9.1996 who was appointed as Sub-Station Supervisor Gr.II on probation for two years on the premise that adverse remark was recorded in the police antecedent report dated 8.8.1996 indicating that a criminal case was registered and pending against him for the offence u/S.447 & 379 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant after going through the process of selection as contemplated under the Scheme of Rules came to be appointed on the post of Sub-Station Supervisor Gr. II in the pay scale of 1200-2050 on probation for a period of two years vide order dated 17.5.1996. While he was performing his duties, on police verification, antecedent report from the office of Superintendent of Police of the District dated 8.8.1996 was received and while certifying his character to be satisfactory and fit for employment in the state govt. made further indication of a criminal case-126/95 was registered against the appellant u/S.447, 379 IPC. Based on the police antecedent report dated 8.8.1996 and taking note of Clause-6 of terms & conditions of appointment dated 17.5.1996, the services of the appellant came to be terminated vide order dated 24.9.1996. 3. It may be relevant to note that it was not a case where there was any concealment or misrepresentation made by the appellant or suppressing material information asked for by the employer respondent at the time when he filled the form or while the appellant was on probation on the post of Sub-Station Supervisor Gr. II dated 17.5.1996. 4. After notices of the petition came to be served, the respondent tried to justify their action that in view of condition no.6 of the order of appointment, if there was any adverse remark recorded in relation to antecedents of the appointee, his services can be terminated without any notice or any payment in lieu thereof and the police antecedent report received from the SP Jhalawar dated 8.8.1996 clearly indicating that a criminal case-126/95 was registered u/S.447 & 379 IPC and that found him to be unfit to continue in service and accordingly his services have been terminated because of involvement in criminal activities invoking Clause-6 of the terms & conditions of appointment vide order dated 24.9.1996. 5. 5. The ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 3.12.2003 taking note of criminal case registered against him and held that termination is in terms of clause-6 of the letter of appointment and declined to interfere which is a subject matter of challenge in the instant infra court appeal. 6. Counsel for appellant submits that mere pendency of criminal case of trivial nature which is not even remotely reflects the character of an incumbent and mere institution of criminal case itself may not consider of a nature of involvement of any kind of moral turpitude and to make a basis for termination of service and further submits that condition no.6 of the terms & conditions of order of appointment dated 17.5.1996 also does not indicate that mere pendency of criminal case in itself may consider to be an adverse remark which can entail termination of service without taking note of nature of allegation levelled and effect of pendency of criminal case in discharge of duties while in service and if it is considered that mere registration of criminal case in itself is sufficient to consider it as an adverse remark and passing order of termination as a consequence thereof may certainly be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and under the Scheme of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Ministerial Staff Regulations 1962 which was prevalent at the relevant time or the Scheme which has now been introduced namely RVPN Ministerial Staff Regulations, 2006 has neither been considered by the respondent nor by the ld. Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition and that requires interference of this Court. 7. Counsel for appellant further submits that it was not the case of the respondent that he has concealed material information or misrepresented while disclosing the information desired by the employer at the time when application form was filled or at any later point of time while he was selected and given appointment on probation for a period of two years vide order dated 17.5.1996 and even as per Reg 12 of the Ministerial Staff Regulations, 1962 mere conviction by court of law need not in itself deprives the appointee to continue in service and the respondent employer is under obligation to examine the circumstances of the conviction, if any. In the instant case, the complainant party is closely related to the appellant's family and dispute was in respect of possession of land and revenue dispute between the parties was pending in which he was acquitted after regular trial by the Ld. trial judge vide order dated 26.4.2001 and which is not even remotely related in any manner reflecting moral character of the appellant. 8. Per contra, counsel for respondents has supported the order of ld. Single Judge and submits that in the letter of appointment dated 17.5.1996 under Clause-6 if there would be any adverse police antecedent report, the employer reserve right to terminate services of such person and as the police antecedent report indicates pendency of criminal case against him, taking that to be an adverse remark, the services have rightly been terminated vide order dated 24.9.1996 and the ld. Single Judge taking note of terms & conditions of order of appointment dated 17.5.1996 and pendency of criminal case against him as an adverse remark, rightly not interfered and upheld the action of the respondents in terminating service of the appellant which does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 10. A close scrutiny of factual scenario in the instance case in equivocal term reveals that the appellant had not concealed or suppressed material information or mentioned false information or misrepresented the employer and it is also not the case of the respondent that he has either misrepresented or has not made available the required information possessed by the appellant while he was offered appointment after due selection on the post of Sub-Station Supervisor Gr.II on probation for a period of two years dated 17.5.1996. 11. By way of clause-15 of the application/verification form, the appellant was called upon to disclose that has he ever been convicted by the court of law or dismissed or his name ever included in the black list and if that being so, mention the provisions under which he has been held guilty and punished/sentenced and the appellant mentioned 'no' and admittedly in the police antecedent report dated 8.8.1996, SP Jhalawar has certified the character of the appellant and found him fit for employment and also mentioned that a criminal case-126/95 has been registered against him u/S.447 & 379 IPC. 12. 12. Based on the police antecedent report which indicated regarding pendency of criminal case-126/95 registered against him u/S.447 & 379 IPC, his services came to be unilaterally terminated invoking Clause 6 of the order of appointment dated 24.9.1996. Indisputably, it was not the case of concealment or suppression of material information or mentioning false information or misrepresented the employer while filling the verification form at the time of seeking employment. 13. The legal position as regard to the consequence of making false information or suppressing material information in verification form has been considered by the Larger Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2000(2) RLW 815 and also by the Apex Court in its various decisions in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in 2003(3)SCC 437 and later decision of R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police 2008(1) SCC 660 and also in Union of India v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen reported in 2008(11) SCC 314 and the Apex Court is consistent in its view that while filling the relevant column of attestation/verification form if there is any suppression of material information or declaring false statement has a bearing on the character and antecedents of an employee in relation to his continuation in service as a nature of information desired appears to be relevant in judging the character and antecedent of the appointee to be continued in service or not and the legal position has been culled out by the Apex Court in 2010 (14) SCC 103 Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors and relevant para 9 & 10 reads ad infra- 9. When an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can therefore lead to any of the following consequences: (a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed on probation, discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which he was involved. (b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarant's fitness for employment, or where the declarant had been honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment. (c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on verification it is found that the answers were false, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant. (d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations in the verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say police verification or complaints etc.) learns about the involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a) or (b) above. 10. Thus an employee on probation can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment: (i) on the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed from his conviction in a criminal case, or his involvement in a criminal offence (even if he was acquitted on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt) or other conduct (like copying in examination) or rustication or suspension or debarment from college etc.; and (ii) on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for an criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case). This ground is distinct from the ground of previous antecedents and character, as it shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the post. 14. This ground is distinct from the ground of previous antecedents and character, as it shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of making the declaration, thereby making him unsuitable for the post. 14. In the instant case, the requisite information relevant which the respondent called upon the appellant to disclose in the application form reads ad infra- 15- D;k vHkh vki U;k;ky; }kjk nks"kh Bgjk;s x;s gS ;k c[kkZLr'kqnk gS] ;k vkidk uke oT;Z lwph Cysd fyLV esa gSA ;fn ,slk gS rks ml /kkjk dk ftlds v/khu nks"kh Bgjk;s x;s rFkk ltk nh xbZ] mYys[k dhft;sA % ugha 15. Condition no.6 of the order of appointment dated 17.5.1996 which is relevant for the present purpose reads ad infra- 6. The Controlling Officer will obtain Police Antecedent Report from the Superintendent of Police of the District of his home town in the prescribed format and in case of any adverse remarks, the services of such persons shall deemed to have been terminated with immediate effect, for which no compensation shall be paid to him". 16. The information u/Clause 15 of application form desired by the respondent was in respect of a criminal case in which he has ever been convicted or dismissed from service or he has ever been black listed or sentenced and he mentioned "no" and indisputably the information declared by the appellant no where indicates that there was any concealment of material information or misrepresentation on his part in furnishing declaration in the verification form and it is not the case of the respondent also, at the same time, in the police antecedent report dated 8.8.1996 the character of the appellant was found to be satisfactory and fit for Government employment and a reference has been made of criminal case no.126/95 registered against the appellant u/S.447, 379 IPC while applying cardinal principles laid down by the Apex Court, this Court has been called upon to examine as to whether mere registration of a criminal case against the appellant of trivial nature may in itself be considered sufficient to hold a person from deprivation of service in view of condition no.6 of the order of appointment dated 17.5.1996. 17. 17. The post of Sub-Station Supervisor Gr.II is included in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Ministerial Staff Regulations, 1962 and Regulation 12 relates to character of the candidate for direct recruitment in service to consider his overall fitness for service of the Nigam. Regulation 12 relevant for the present purpose reads ad infra- 12. Character- The character of a candidate for direct recruitment to any cadre must be such as to fit him for service of the Board. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic Officer of the University, School or College in which he was last educated and two such certificates written not more than six months prior to the date of application from two responsible persons not connected with his School, College or University and not related to him- Note-A conviction by a court of law need not in itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances or the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has as its object the overthrow by violent means of Government, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. 18. Regulation 12 of the scheme also envisage that a conviction by court of law need not in itself may be sufficient for refusal of good character. The relevant circumstances or conviction if any has to be independently examined as to whether it involves moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence has to be considered in totality as an adverse remark reflecting character of the appointee for retention in public employment and mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. 19. In the instant case, SP Jhalawar sent a positive police antecedent report certifying character verification of the appellant and fit for public employment in its report dated 8.8.1996 and indicating pendency of criminal case registered u/S.447 & 379 IPC against him in which later on the appellant was acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dated 26.4.2001. 20. In the instant case, SP Jhalawar sent a positive police antecedent report certifying character verification of the appellant and fit for public employment in its report dated 8.8.1996 and indicating pendency of criminal case registered u/S.447 & 379 IPC against him in which later on the appellant was acquitted by the competent court of jurisdiction vide judgment dated 26.4.2001. 20. It is true that the acquittal may not be relevant for the present consideration but the fact that can be noticed is that when conviction by court of law in itself is not be regarded as a disqualification and indisputably there is no suppression of material particulars or false information in any manner tendered or indicated by the appellant while filling verification form, in our considered view, mere institution of a criminal case for the offence u/S.447 & 379 IPC of trivial nature at least may not come as an impediment in the decision making process of the authorities as an adverse remark of a nature in terminating services of a probationer invoking Clause 6 of the order of appointment dated 17.5.1996 and the alleged adverse remark shall not entail termination vide order impugned dated 24.9.1996 and in our considered view, the unilateral decision of terminating services invoking Clause 6 of the order of appointment was uncalled for and not sustainable in law. 21. The ld. Single Judge has not taken into consideration the Scheme of Regulation and Reg 12 in particular that envisage that mere conviction by a court of law need not in itself invoke the refusal of a certificate of good character and so also nature of police antecedents report which was furnished from the office of SP Jhalawar dated 8.8.1996 and the nature of material available on record and as already observed pendency of a criminal case may not consider of a nature of involvement of any kind of moral turpitude and as an impediment to make a basis for its termination of service and invoking condition no.6 of the order of appointment in the facts & circumstances of the present case was uncalled for and violative of Reg. 12 of Scheme of Regulation 1962 and not sustainable in law. 22. 12 of Scheme of Regulation 1962 and not sustainable in law. 22. When we consider grant of relief to the appellant, we find that being a technocrat must be in employment or self employed after termination, in the facts & circumstances, he deserves reinstatement in service but shall be entitled to get notional benefits including seniority and other service benefits flowing thereof but not the actual salary of the period during which he has not discharged his duties. 23. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed The order of ld. Single Judge dated 3.12.2003 and so also the order of termination dated 24.9.1996 are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service with notional benefits including seniority & other service benefits flowing thereof but not the actual salary for the period he has not discharged his duties. Necessary compliance be made within 30 days. No cost.Appeal allowed. *******